DrWinner wrote:The SC exists as both a part of the game and as part of our real life feelings, and thus, voting FOR this bill means that you support this organization receving the benefit of having a condemnation, which, in the raider world, means you're tough enough for the SC to have to notice you. That's a big benefit for the raiders.
We Are Not the NSA wrote:Debates in the Security Council are a mixture of out of character (OOC) and in character (IC), depending on the preference of the poster and the context of the proposal being debated.
I must say, this is a concept I find rather difficult to understand. I do accept that some people wish to focus entirely on the mechanics of the game, and have no part in role play whatsoever. That's totally understandable and absolutely fine. However, we simply cannot deny the fact that even the game itself is 'in character'. Obviously you understand that your nation is not actually a real country in the real world (I hope you do!). And you understand that you yourself are not really the leader of an actual country. Perhaps you choose to ignore these elements and 'play' the game from an entirely technical perspective - making 'decisions' solely based on trying to manipulate or figure out the mechanics of the way the game works. But when it comes to the Security Council, when you are writing or reading resolutions, you surely understand that this is make believe? That such writings are not written in a genuine, real world, sense?
So whilst I accept that some may be very keen to avoid any form of role play at all costs, one simply cannot deny the nature of this game, such that even so-called 'gameplayers' are engaging in some form of 'in character' behaviour, even more so when it comes to the 'World Assembly'.
