Voxumo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 5:30 pm
If you are going to shit talk me Farra, and make none too subtle suggestions, at least don't hide behind an attempt to be righteous.
I'd like to clear some things... Firstly, your insinuation that I've brought said topic up because my support is at neutral... You realize I've been sitting at neutral since bloody february right? I haven't seen a shift in my support at all, except an odd moment of time where I suddenly shot up to entrenched for maybe 4 days max, and was quickly right back down to neutral. But no, I'll remember the suggestion that only those at Entrenched are allowed to talk about the ridiculous support system, because clearly anyone else has ulterior motives.
I'm not trying to insinuate that this is the reason for the suggestion. I'm merely mentioning that it's odd timing to bring it up now. You used language like calling the support system a "purely OOC metric" which it is not, you framed an argument biased for yourself to try to prove the point, didn't much comment on other people's concerns, and claimed victim to an issue that I can't ever remember happening on TI:L. I agree that a Tenebrae should have more protection from the court of public opinion when it comes to being removed as a Guild Leader, which was your fear. I do not agree with the Tenebrae being shielded from that court by OOC, artificial protections that they have full control over.
Secondly... Nice job relaying ic information through an ooc means. Glad to see you have no qualms about such when it's against someone you disagree with.
I'm not sure which information I shared? If you're commenting on the Tenebrae being connected in support of the gambit, that comes from a comment left in the gambit system, which is available to all players without having to purchase anything. You may use 'gambit review 1' to see the comment; it's number four on there. If you feel like I've shared information in a way that violates policy, you can absolutely talk about it with staff and I'll defer to their judgement, but I didn't think that something visible on a MUD-wide, free-to-access method would be contentious.
Though arguably I can see where such an idea would come from, as I certainly chose the wrong time. As mentioned I wrote that original idea after talking with another, during a time when I was upset and just generally frustrated with being Tenebrae. Particularly because they made mention of playing a successful organized crime leader in another game, that conveniently doesn't have a support system like TI's, where the longevity of a Guildleader is strongly tied to whether or not a small group of highly supported characters, or a large group of measly supported characters, are sick of your nonsense. So yes, the timing on my part was shitty, but it had nothing to do with a supposed fear of backlash.
That's fair. I'm glad that you can understand why I might have been suspicious of the timing. It's good to know that current IC landscape didn't play a role in it, but I thought it necessary to raise it as you hadn't explained this in your original idea. Not every critical comment is made with nefarious intent.
Said fear stems from a desire to go beyond, with killings and other such crimes being a norm, and a fear that when lives start to be taken, that such will be crossing the line. It also stems from my time as Misune, where I was ousted by my entire guild, though not a single person had the audacity to bring the concerns they raised to my attention icly, and instead I was swept away in a sudden wave of accusations I hadn't even been aware of until the ousting.
I definitely understand that. As I said, I agree that the Tenebrae should have more protections than others. However, I simply felt the ideas you proposed were far too generous for the Tenebrae, as "knowing a name" is something that player can control to quite a large extent. Again, I say this from personal experience. While you might not abuse such a restriction on support, I wanted to illustrate how easily a Tenebrae could use this protection to blatantly abuse the system. Any change to such policy shouldn't be made for a single player's benefit but built to ensure it can't be abused in the future. Restricting the way gambits work against the Tenebrae by limiting who can have a voice when such a gambit might occur would solve this problem without the risk of Twinking that your suggestion would allow. Like Tasker said, a Tenebrae SHOULD be fine with being 'disliked' by the city at large, but certainly shouldn't fear being removed so long as they are keeping the Brotherhood happy and, to a lesser importance, the Freemen that the Brotherhood works with/for.
Easier to oocly subvert than to confront icly.
I sympathize here, I really do. I always found it frustrating how few people would confront Farra ICly but instead choose to subvert and never let things come to a head, but I do think it's important to remember that subversion
is not an OOC metric. It represents an IC action with IC consequence. By subverting someone, your character is doing what they can to talk shit
without risking their neck. And I think that's good. I've got plenty of ways I'd like to see the support system improved (indeed, I think anyone familiar with me at OOC meetings will recall me grouching about the system some!) but shielding one GL from it over others isn't the way to go, in my opinion. As others have said: when someone supports or subverts "The Tenebrae" the impact is the same whether they know the person's name or not. The Tenebrae keeping their identity a secret has so many advantages (the Tenebrae can't be warranted code-wise if the Reeves don't know the Tenebrae's name, after all!) that rewarding them even more for keeping information secret doesn't sit well with me.
Thirdly: When was the last time we had a "Bad" Tenebrae, or really an active brotherhood in general? A brotherhood who just didn't hide in their hidey hole? The last time I can think of was when two mages lead the brotherhood, and were thusly banned from the game. Other than that we've not had a proper "Bad" Tenebrae in a good several years, perhaps even before the introduction of the gambit process, as that's still a relatively new system in the grand scheme of things.
I
think I remember the Tenebrae being up to all kinds of no-good when I was new to the game; however, I'll concede readily that my memory of that isn't really that great at all and that I might not have had reliable information on that front.
As for the coded name bit... You know you aren't wrong on that, though such had never crossed my mind as that just seems like abusing an ooc system, and I tend to avoid stooping to such lows.
Finally the idea that only freeman or thieves can initiate a gambit against the Tenebrae. I actually think that's a far better idea than what I suggested.
If I came across as suggesting that you specifically would abuse the system then I apologize, that really wasn't my intention. I know I can word vomit a bit and let some opinions come through a bit too harshly at times. I actually really like the support system overall. I remember what it was like before that was implemented and GLs were able to be very abrasive and, so long as they never put themselves into a position to be PK'd (which isn't that hard to do, really!) then there was little anyone could do about it. I don't want the Tenebrae or Brotherhood to be able to act without thought of recourse, and the initial suggestion really had ways that this would enable that kind of behavior.
And, thinking about the idea further, I like the idea of making it where only Thieves / Freeman can initiate
or vote on a gambit of the Tenebrae. That way, the nobles and Reeves could,
in theory influence a gambit like that, but they'd be entirely reliant on garnering support of the lower classes. While what the nobles and reeves think of the Tenebrae
should matter somewhat, it shouldn't matter to the extent that their opinions trump those who matter for the Brotherhood.