If you are not hot for philosophy, best just to skip it.
The Aneristic Principle is that of apparent order; the Eristic Principle is that of apparent disorder. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of pure chaos, which is a level deeper than is the level of distinction making.
With our concept making apparatus called "mind" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us.
The ideas-about-reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently.
It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T) True reality is a level deeper than is the level of concept.
We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The order is in the grid. That is the Aneristic Principle.
Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the Aneristic Illusion. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.
Disorder is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the Eristic Principle.
The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the Eristic Illusion.
The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered.
Reality is the original Rorschach. Verily! So much for all that.
Malaclypse the Younger, Principia Discordia, Pages 0004900050
Let's all examine our "grids" please, and decide if our biases are consistent with "Truth", or just "truth".
I have already violated my Vows to Eris by thinking I know the difference. It won't happen again.
I don't care anymore. I don't exist. That is the "Reality" Illusion.
80% or so think Official Factions should have more rights.
As a result, the Admins have been discussing which specific rights could be granted to Official Factions. We have come up with these 5.
80% of the people who voted. That doesn't account for many who aren't actively searching, nor for people who don't use the forums. Are we going to make the forumites, those who define and make the way the server works? Or again, is that Igiss and the admins place?
Quote:These will be posted in the Discovery RP Factions forum, as a pinned thread, then Rule 4.3 will be altered to read:
THIS POST is an introduction and summarizes the proposed Rights.
THE POST AFTER THIS ONE is a description of what will be required to implement them.
Comments? Concerns? Here are the 5 Rights of Official Factions:
Quote:1) Official Factions are free to restrict or not restrict access to their owned systems and tax players who enter owned system. However, properly Tagged and ID'd independent players may enter Guard systems. Access to systems that surround owned system must not be restricted unless there's a war with another faction.
This needs clarifying. Can official players tax unofficial or independent players who are correctly ID'ed and Tagged, if the owned system is not a guard system? (I'm not up to play on the server so this is a legit question.)
Quote:2) Official factions have authority over players of the same NPC affiliation, as long as RP justification is provided. This authority applies in forums and in-game, and applies to player faction diplomacy, and strategic and tactical direction. However, exercise of that authority, on the forums and in game, is restricted to official faction members with the rank of the official faction leader and one rank below him/her. The authority may be exercised through the use of in-game in-RP orders, which, if not obeyed, can result in in-game in-RP consequences (arrest, court martial, and even lethal force in extreme circumstances). Official Factions cannot, under any cicrumstances Spelling, require another player to follow non-canon RP if that player doesn't want to.
INTENT OF RIGHT NUMBER 2:
The intent of this right is to allow official faction leadership to also provide leadership, with discretion, to independent players, to improve server gameplay, fairplay, and roleplay.
This right is NOT intended to provide the official faction leadership the right to exercise power for its own sake.
An example of "good" exercise of these rights is to require an independent player to not utilize a heavy captial ship against a smaller lone fighter or bomber, or to not enter an existing fight where entering the fight would unbalance it greatly, or to require the independent player to take action or not take action in support of good RP. (ie, ordering the escort of a diplomat, or something equally creative)
An example of "bad" exercise of this right would be to require the player to patrol an empty system, for no particular reason. Requiring the independent to investigate a particular suspicious ship, though, would be legitimate.
An offical faction consistently abusing this right, could lose it at the Admins' discretion.
It great seeing the INTENT. I think more rules need things like this, i.e. what's the intent of such and such instead of these are the written words of god. People focus too much on what's not allowed instead of seeing what they CAN do.
Quote:3) Once a faction achieves official status, they will receive their downpayment of $500 mill back. They will further receive a Cap 8 Armour Upgrade, once they have spent 3 months contributing meaningfully to server RP, for instance, via events and forum activity.
Other than a free Armour upgrade, I see no difference to an "official faction" to a group of players who play regularly on the same side. If the "official factions" get their money back, then to my mind you might as well not have it in the first place. Perhaps add that official factions get their own forum space (but then this is debated about for "unofficial factions" as well... so again not much difference, and currently unfair on unofficial.)
Quote:4) Official Factions who have planned an event can restrict participation of others in that event as they see fit.
Seems fair enough. Those who organise it can restrict. Makes common sense, however, its not really a right is it? What's an event though? A pre-scripted outcome with defined sides or a place where the story can actually change? I (and others I'm aware of) are not interested in joining an event that "has to happen a certain way." That is someone else directing my RP, and I will not allow that to happen, without my permission. I think this one is still thinking to linearly
Quote:5) Official Factions control the issuance of Battleship Licences to independent players and faction members for their house Battleships, via the forum application process.
Players sanctioned for PVP violations in a battleship may, at the Admin's discretion, have the licence removed as part of their sanction. They must then re-apply for the licence from the official faction, or downgrade the ship.
An Official Faction which has granted a battleship licence to a player may ask the Admins afterwards to remove the licence, with reasons. Conversely a player who feels they have been treated unfairly by an Official Faction, regarding a licence, may appeal to the Admins.
Lets try it for awhile, and refine it if any problems come up. The OC seemed to work quite well, but then got shot down for doing the exact thing. But then I can see where personal prejudices have influenced the "approval" as well in the past. Akumbito would never have received approval, based on the forums hatred of him. Sorry to bring that up again, but it is a perfect example of how low this "community" can go. I'm sure many people got told off for that (or I hope so), but I'm ever mindful of this and other examples. These are the places were accusations of mis-conduct and anti-trust come from. It's fine to say "ignore the applicant's personal history" but how many people do that? In fact it can show possible problem areas that faction leaders DO look at so that they can avoid problems in the future...but then other people whine about it.
Change is good. BS control by faction has only been tested on a few factions before. It has worked in the past, but it also needs to be balanced out with what the players freedoms on THIS server are. What are those freedoms? The first one is to have fun, the second is to treat others the same way you want to be treated. You want aggression, be aggressive. You want disdain, use that. You want reason and mercy and help? Do those.
Sovereign Wrote:Seek fun and you shall find it. Seek stuff to Q_Q about and you'll find that, too. I choose to have fun.
Of course, the gunpowder analogy got attention, just not in the way I hoped.
And I am certainly not dumb enough to play with gunpowder, my father is proficient in most fire arms including the black powder ones and I'd have to go to him to get the gun powder.
But on to the relevant to this topic, like I kinda said in my last post, most talk here is just that, talk. I've seen many a potentially great idea tossed aside because it might be abused by a certain person on Sundays if they were wearing a certain colour of shirt, and I haven't even been here that long. If it has enough potential to open up a debate it should at least be tried. (Save of course for the things made impossible by game mechanics)
Seeing as this was started due to a poll saying that most people (who voted) thought that factions deserved more benefits/power, perhaps it's time for an (official) poll to see if people think that control of battleship availability is one of the benefits factions should have. The other bits (especially since the non-canon RP enforcement was clarified) don't seem to be nearly as important to people, and seem to have widespread support from the little bit I've been paying attention to this thread.
' Wrote:Seeing as this was started due to a poll saying that most people (who voted) thought that factions deserved more benefits/power, perhaps it's time for an (official) poll to see if people think that control of battleship availability is one of the benefits factions should have. The other bits (especially since the non-canon RP enforcement was clarified) don't seem to be nearly as important to people, and seem to have widespread support from the little bit I've been paying attention to this thread.
It's not so "widespread" and I was part of the 80% and don't support what many factions are eager to get here. Give them free stuff, let them get pretty threads and manage their own events and I don't care. Don't let them control the role play of others.
As the official leader of the official Junker faction, how much backing do I have in trying to regulate what other Junkers do?
Not that I plan to flex it much, aside from a very impending request to all Junkers to clarify just what the hell they're all doing in Kusari. Yes, there's a bit of RP there to justify an expansion. But that doesn't mean everyone and their mother should be in there harassing what is a sparsely populated and fragile RP environment.
The inside perspective was brought to my attention, certain anti-Junker factions expressed their irritation at just how much of their online time is being spent chasing down Junkers (besides Tink in his barge, which is an issue I'm not touching with a ten-foot pole) who are running trade everywhere and ignoring the "no lawful Kusari docking" portion of the ID. This apparently happens enough that their RP, and their overall enjoyment in playing the faction is impacted.
The Junker IFF/ID is possibly the most abused trading neutrality card out there. While I'm going to put out a request to Junker players out there to pay closer attention to what they're doing, many won't even heed my request or will snark at it like the kid in the back of a high school class does at the teacher. Many of the individuals making Junker tagged transports synonymous with powertrading don't even read the forums.
Leaving them to die at the hands of their enemies apparently isn't working either, as the AFA have expressed to me that they spend at least half their time doing that in Kusari rather than pursuing their own RP.
So with this new ruling, the Congress has the ability to exercise power over what is the most poorly policed and easily abused faction in Discovery. I imagine this is going to be very poorly received, and that .:j:. tagged characters telling independent Junkers to quit trading Optronics out of Honshu are going to get some very insulting replies.
The kicker is that it's completely contrary to Junker RP to open fire on their own, and I'm not interested in killing other Junkers until they learn as they don't listen to what we ask them to begin with. So... what do we do? And who do we turn to when in-game solutions fail?
Off topic in reply to Rudo:
I fully understand the annoyance of oorp Junkerism in Kusari. For the record, I don't dock Kusari bases--tempting as it is--and in fact have told Junkers passing by "suspiciously" that they aren't to do so either.
On Topic in regard to Rudo's comment"
"Fragile RP Environment" to me says, "We have made ourselves a nice little rp niche here and don't want anyone besides those we have invited to come." Sorry, you can ask for that but you can't demand it--especially if people are actually pursuing role play there in a public system and especially if their faction rp brings them there legitimately.
That brings us to the above topic:
I am peeved at your intrusion into my beautiful role play--say at Rochester. I have established myself as the "governor of Rochester" and have players who play that with me there and you show up as some "Junker military commander who doesn't answer to a governor"--in fact, you have a small unofficial faction playing group of tough bitten indie Junkers. I happen to also have started an official faction incorporating this role play and get your role play altered or your character account punished since you present a role play I don't want to accept. Your group has to move (even if the location is important to their rp) or drop their current rp and invent a new one. One role play needs to adapt to the other--if they are plausible within the generic faction allowances (ie, no "I am an alien and eat all your ships and mind control you all" or "I am a Junker resistance group that wants us all to be Hogosha"--etc, etc.) I don't want one "official" group (of any kind) telling all the indies and varied unofficial groups of their faction type "how they must play". It becomes THEIR server then and you are an unempowered guest on it. Just beating the horse here. Get an official purchased system and you can do some very creative rp there--uninterrupted.
Regarding the below:
Please consider that many "Junkers"--especially those docking oorp and the like--are simply financial accounts and not actual faction players. Many like to smuggle and choose Junkers as they are ubiquitous. This is a case of poor players. Not a reason to embargo Junker rp in an entire house. We dealt with the same thing with PVP Bounty Hunters, indie pirates, Dragon battleships, KNF battleships and bounty hunter battleships camping Yanagi and blowing us away all the time. We never asked for "control of Sigma 13" from the admins or demanded certain ships/factions not be allowed there. Even though they particularly affected our very specific rp there quite negatively and with very bad play and frequent oorp behavior. You don't eliminate a right to correct a wrong. I want happy enemies too--and want to helpfully play with them But not at the end of constant whining, questioning, accusing and insult. That isn't 'playing" and that is the core problem.
Quote:A concession on a topic does not mean a concession in ideology. I'm all for giving them a bit of breathing room if they're asking for it.
Agreed. Perhaps they should learn to actually ask then.
Personally, my own views on factions policing independents is that factions shouldn't really have the right. In the instance of Junker powergaming disturbing Kusari (just FYI, the bounty issued by the AFA on the Congress has nothing to do with my opinions of Junkers in Kusari. My talks with Zelot, Baconsoda and Griz have.) it's compounded by that there are relatively few Farmers Alliance, Hogosha and KNF types to deal with what is actually a huge amount of Junkers.
As faction leader, while I neither want nor believe I have the right to bark orders at people, I do want to help those who I RP with/against. A happy enemy is an enemy I can have fun planning events with.
And Tink, while there's merit in that "It's not their Kusari alone" viewpoint, it's just an issue of numbers. There are a lot of Junkers. While I'm sure the odd escorted transport poking through is welcomed, the sheer numbers of them using the tradelanes and/or seeking fights with the AFA/[|] sitting and minding their own business in Honshu is a bit disruptive. There's really just not that many of them and Kusari is sort of intended to be its own unique snowflake.
A concession on a topic does not mean a concession in ideology. I'm all for giving them a bit of breathing room if they're asking for it.
Please consider that many "Junkers"--especially those docking oorp and the like--are simply financial accounts and not actual faction players. Many like to smuggle and choose Junkers as they are ubiquitous. This is a case of poor players. Not a reason to embargo Junker rp in an entire house. We dealt with the same thing with PVP Bounty Hunters, indie pirates, Dragon battleships, KNF battleships and bounty hunter battleships camping Yanagi and blowing us away all the time. We never asked for "control of Sigma 13" from the admins or demanded certain ships/factions not be allowed there. Even though they particularly affected our very specific rp there quite negatively and with very bad play and frequent oorp behavior.
You don't eliminate a right to correct a wrong.
This is again, valid. Unfortunately as we are in fact the vanguard of the faction, we are looked to to provide the example. In the Yanagi Nightmare days I did something foolish and purchased an RPC to chase the lolcaps away with. Within the week there were at least four other RPCs all doing what I did, with a much shakier grasp on what the intention of the ship was.
People didn't ask what the ship was for, they just saw 'ooh, official junker cap with justifiable RP, I'll get one too and not bother with decent RP or holding back fire, as they're not the boss of me'. I ditched the cap within the week.
Using that example; I'm not interested in embargoing the good to keep out the bad, that generally doesn't work and just penalizes ourselves. I liked that cruiser. But limiting Kusari exposure lends weight to the occasions where Junkers do pop in.
The request made of us as core players in this faction might seem like a bit much; especially considering old grudges and conflicting ideologies, but what harm is there in cooperating however we may? Also, without policing the independents through force and without providing the example, what can we do fulfill this request?
Leading by example is, unfortunately, one of the only options that doesn't lead to angry trial-by-forums and sanction posts. I've been asking the Congress members to make concessions on fronts they should have much more freedom on, and to be better roleplayers with much more PVP restraint than any unlawful has any right to be.
But the example is provided, to those that want to follow it.
...I don't know where I'm going with this. I guess I'm just proud of what's been done with the faction by those in it, and just more to see what's being done with Junker RP and to work with that, rather than just using the IFF as a piggy bank.
' Wrote:The request made of us as core players in this faction might seem like a bit much; especially considering old grudges and conflicting ideologies, but what harm is there in cooperating however we may? Also, without policing the independents through force and without providing the example, what can we do fulfill this request?
I don't have a problem at all with what you suggest here. This is the entire reason for factions and it requires NO "additional power". One official faction ASKS another for help (not to be confused with *cough* demanding compliance). Factions that sought official recognition should work together freely. "Official" denotes an agreement to work collectively to make things better (not a mandate for power).
"Without Force" and "By Example" are the best approaches...period. That is my whole point. Factions have the fantastic opportunity to demonstrate proper rp and fair play responses as educators, trendsetters and real life examples. Few are actually doing that. Most are crabbing about "everyone else's role play" and now looking for "new powers" so they can "fix them".
"Working together" also doesn't mean reaching into the organization and composition of other factions and critically demanding they alter their role play--it means coordinating together.
If just these things were done, 90% of the problems would be solved. Hackers and cheaters and kiddie game spoilers are beyond all our abilities to deal with--admins have to use technology for that. Rules can correct the rough and establish basic common behaviors and provide enough substance to encourage the new--but creating and maintaining good role play isn't something you can power and demand and legislate into existence. That kills it. The reason I am operating independently at present is to many are fighting to have their way rather than simply working together. "Don't do your rp", "You suck" or agitating animosity aren't working together and are not calls to compromise. They are attitudes and they are too prevalent here with to many. I am still looking for the faction that takes its responsibility to be an example above demanding it rights to do so. And creating "exclusive" role play for a small circle of friends and combating to keep others out is simply selfish. I am not actually talking about "Kusari" here. There have been multiple examples of this on Disco. We need to shift our focus. this thread's initial proposal is a step away from that in my opinion.
![[Image: malsig_alt1.png]](http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o108/Shamus_FL/malsig_alt1.png)
![[Image: Tink_Shadow.png]](http://junkers.worldstrider.info/images/Tink_Shadow.png)
![[Image: DTdrqPU.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/DTdrqPU.gif)