The Black Hawks | Still Winning

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

I think on the whole, a more enforced environment would make more people more comfortable posting here.

It would make more people who aren't gameplayers more comfortable posting here. What you're talking about is a fundamental transformation of gameplay into something fluffier and friendlier. That isn't gameplay. It has never been gameplay. And while getting more RPers onto this forum might help you recruit them to join your midnight capture the flag games, it won't do anything for the political side of gameplay. Except ruin it.

Mm, getting more people introduced and involved in stuff ruins it? That's news to me. I've always thought that sharing my interests to more people and getting them involved as the best thing I could do for them...

I'd say more but I wager Swith is going to have something to say to this and will phrase it far better than I could.

[Shizensky]

I think on the whole, a more enforced environment would make more people more comfortable posting here.

It would make more people who aren't gameplayers more comfortable posting here.

I think this is what Souls is getting at, but is this part really a big deal? Why aren't they gameplayers? A lot of this recent mod action can be traced back to the idea that we're just supposed to deal with it because that's how gameplay is. We can push the envelope a little harder because that's just gameplay.

We don't really know where this is going yet. Reppy mentioned the idea that the focus should be "attack the post, not the player", and I don't see a lot wrong with that. We have a problem with OOC attacks in gameplay. Nobody can deny that. I'd much rather the mods step in sooner rather than later to catch it when they see it rather than bringing down the hammer seemingly out of nowhere after things get out of hand.

I don't see this as a move towards "fluffy" gameplay. It's a reminder for folks to take a minute to think about what it means to press the submit button before they commit to posting their message.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

It would make more people who aren't gameplayers more comfortable posting here.

I think this is what Souls is getting at, but is this part really a big deal? Why aren't they gameplayers? A lot of this recent mod action can be traced back to the idea that we're just supposed to deal with it because that's how gameplay is. We can push the envelope a little harder because that's just gameplay.

We don't really know where this is going yet. Reppy mentioned the idea that the focus should be "attack the post, not the player", and I don't see a lot wrong with that. We have a problem with OOC attacks in gameplay. Nobody can deny that. I'd much rather the mods step in sooner rather than later to catch it when they see it rather than bringing down the hammer seemingly out of nowhere after things get out of hand.

I don't see this as a move towards "fluffy" gameplay. It's a reminder for folks to take a minute to think about what it means to press the submit button before they commit to posting their message.

I can +1 everything said here.

[Cormactopia Prime]

It would make more people who aren't gameplayers more comfortable posting here. What you're talking about is a fundamental transformation of gameplay into something fluffier and friendlier. That isn't gameplay. It has never been gameplay. And while getting more RPers onto this forum might help you recruit them to join your midnight capture the flag games, it won't do anything for the political side of gameplay. Except ruin it.

Mm, getting more people introduced and involved in stuff ruins it? That's news to me. I've always thought that sharing my interests to more people and getting them involved as the best thing I could do for them...

They won't be introduced to the politics of gameplay or getting involved in that if politics can't be expressed in this forum because all meaningful gameplay politics are interpreted as "baiting" and Moderation starts cracking down. What they will instead be introduced to -- and I'm sure this is why you're pushing this agenda -- are your apolitical midnight capture the flag games. And then we'll have a whole bunch of people believing that is all there is to gameplay, and preferring it that way, which will basically just reduce gameplay to R/D capture the flag. I'm not for that.

[Kylia Quilor]

How far does this slope slip then? "Fenda" has been an insult since Powell started using it over a decade ago, and is still used as a slur to this day.

As Koth said, there doesn't need to be a slope. My concern is with over-moderation, not under-moderation, in most cases (though the recent case of "racist" being not actionable was just mind boggling, I think we can all agree). I don't think fenda, darkspawn, or hagfish should be actionable because they are all harmless gameplay banter, but if suddenly Moderation is going to treat this as a pressing problem that requires extensive ominous looming followed up by warnings if the banter persists, then all of these terms need to be treated as similarly problematic. The excuses being made by Moderation to rationalize one group's banterish term over another's are not valid and are not okay. The mental gymnastics going on are ludicrous.

That's my view. I don't like 'Darkspawn', but I never felt like it was anything to bring the mods in on. Hagfish and Fenda and any other term people want to use that is in the context of the game should be seen the same. And treated the same by the mods.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Mm, getting more people introduced and involved in stuff ruins it? That's news to me. I've always thought that sharing my interests to more people and getting them involved as the best thing I could do for them...

They won't be introduced to the politics of gameplay or getting involved in that if politics can't be expressed in this forum because all meaningful gameplay politics are interpreted as "baiting" and Moderation starts cracking down. What they will instead be introduced to -- and I'm sure this is why you're pushing this agenda -- are your apolitical midnight capture the flag games. And then we'll have a whole bunch of people believing that is all there is to gameplay, and preferring it that way, which will basically just reduce gameplay to R/D capture the flag. I'm not for that.

I'd say many of them are probably well versed in politics, and even write frequently on the matter. I think you're underestimating them.

[Kylia Quilor]

And moving forward, when the banter is crossing lines, similar chilly-downs will be posted as needed in other threads, be they raider, defender, or GCR Drama of the Week. This seems like it will be an overall more effective and more useful approach than merely issuing generalized condemnations and sweeping prohibitions, since it will have specific examples to point at and say, "This is going too far. Dial it back."

Ultimately, the biggest problem is that there is an extremely fuzzy distinction between what could arguably be called "IC" bantering between friendly rivals, and what is purely out-of-character nastiness toward one's opponents. Much like the saying goes in NSG about "attack the post, not the poster", likewise you can attack the action, be it raiding/defending/imperialist stuff/antifa/whatever without attacking the person.

Some of this problem most certainly stems from inconsistent or simply not enough mod attention, due to a combination of lack of reports/the more active GP mods getting less active due to IRL obligations/the idea that moderation is a tool to be used as part of the R/D metagame. This has allowed toxic behavior to slide under the radar long enough that it became accepted as "normal." Hence the effort to be more visible and try to nudge the overall behavior away from the toxic sniping that's gone unchecked for so long and bring it back down to what can actually be called banter. Preferably with chilly-downs and "Guys, this is too far, bring it back" to nudge things along rather than just going "YOU get a ban! And YOU get a ban! EVERYBODY gets a ban!"

We're not friendly rivals tho, Reploid. I'm not going around personally attacking people on the other side here on GP, but while I can have some non-hostile banter with some of them, there's a lot of people on the other side I do not like and have no interest in being friendly with. There's people on my own side that I have the same view on - that is, I don't like them. Actively. I should be allowed to be clear about that in my posts without some arbitrary notion of 'friendly rivalry' forcing its way down my throat.

I don't want Gameplay to be reduced to just 'we're all friendly chums off the battlefield' or any attempt to force us to act like that.

[Vincent Drake]

If you must use "darkspawn", then keep it in context - your org's IC dispatches and battle reports.

I totally agree, that's where it belongs going forward from here. We *should* be restricting its use to contexts that use the org's theme, and even then, not overdoing it. However, we have no control over what others decide to do with the term, like with The Honest Defender posts. The most I can do is ask people in general not to use the term outside of regional reports/news and hope they comply.

[Kylia Quilor]

If you must use "darkspawn", then keep it in context - your org's IC dispatches and battle reports.

I totally agree, that's where it belongs going forward from here. We *should* be restricting its use to contexts that use the org's theme, and even then, not overdoing it. However, we have no control over what others decide to do with the term, like with The Honest Defender posts. The most I can do is ask people in general not to use the term outside of regional reports/news and hope they comply.

And maybe have some at least perfunctory wrist-slaps when your own people use it outside of the proper contexts? Pretend to be enforcing some rules?

[Cormactopia Prime]

They won't be introduced to the politics of gameplay or getting involved in that if politics can't be expressed in this forum because all meaningful gameplay politics are interpreted as "baiting" and Moderation starts cracking down. What they will instead be introduced to -- and I'm sure this is why you're pushing this agenda -- are your apolitical midnight capture the flag games. And then we'll have a whole bunch of people believing that is all there is to gameplay, and preferring it that way, which will basically just reduce gameplay to R/D capture the flag. I'm not for that.

I'd say many of them are probably well versed in politics, and write frequently on the matter. I think you're underestimating them.

I think you're trying to twist this into me having a problem with RPers (or whoever else) when that isn't what this is about. What I have a problem with is that you are pushing an agenda, using Moderation, that you think will be favorable to your region and your style of gameplay. If politics are pretty much shut down on this forum, and if it isn't possible to post anything on this forum besides an endless string of sanitized R/D reports without running the risk of getting warned, you and The Black Hawks stand to benefit. Because all your region is about is playing capture the flag at midnight and noon.

I have no problem with roleplayers being more involved in gameplay, but I do have a problem with fundamentally changing gameplay to get more of them involved -- because if we do that, the gameplay they're involved in won't be my gameplay anymore, it will be yours, and I have absolutely no interest in what passes for "gameplay" among R/Ders who do nothing but click buttons twice a day, gloat about who clicked them faster, and argue about who is more skilled at clicking them. I would love to have more RPers involved in the political side of gameplay, but they aren't going to be involved in that if they can't see that on this forum -- which is what you are advocating.

[Eluvatar]

I don't think that political gameplay is necessarily personal.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I don't think that political gameplay is necessarily personal.

And the recent troubling warnings have not been solely against "personal" insults either. Rach's satire was not personal. The Grey Wardens' most recent report was not personal. The Black Hawks' most recent report was not personal.

[Shizensky]

If politics are pretty much shut down on this forum, and if it isn't possible to post anything on this forum besides an endless string of sanitized R/D reports without running the risk of getting warned

Literally nobody is saying this is going to happen.

We can all agree that OOC attacks are a problem in GP. The mods are obviously working on a solution. What you see as inconsistent seems like a pull towards a settled direction to me.

Right now this is new, and anything any of us has to say is speculation. Neither of us can claim this is a disaster or the best thing to happen to NS yet because it's not even 24 hours old, and so far only TBH and TGW - R/D focused entities - have been on the receiving end of the change.

[Kylia Quilor]

I don't think that political gameplay is necessarily personal.

And the recent troubling warnings have not been solely against "personal" insults either. Rach's satire was not personal. The Grey Wardens' most recent report was not personal. The Black Hawks' most recent report was not personal.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

If you must use "darkspawn", then keep it in context - your org's IC dispatches and battle reports.

I totally agree, that's where it belongs going forward from here. We *should* be restricting its use to contexts that use the org's theme, and even then, not overdoing it. However, we have no control over what others decide to do with the term, like with The Honest Defender posts. The most I can do is ask people in general not to use the term outside of regional reports/news and hope they comply.

I can agree with that. As I've told some hawks, the context there matters. Your theme is wardens. It makes sense to call your opponents darkspawn, within that theme, when it's made clear you're not just randomly associating us with *insert traits of the characters here.* Likewise, if we came up with something similar that *contextually* made sense for Hawks, whether literal hawks or whatever particular form we characterize ourselves as (pilots, dark age mercs, etc), to be fighting, and posted in a way related to *updating* and not *random shots at OOC things*, it wouldn't get told off like Swith's post did. Hagfish had no sensical context, and the topic of the first half of that "IC" post was really anything but. That telling off/the distinction made, I think, is not unreasonable, nor a slippery slope.

[Cormactopia Prime]

If politics are pretty much shut down on this forum, and if it isn't possible to post anything on this forum besides an endless string of sanitized R/D reports without running the risk of getting warned

Literally nobody is saying this is going to happen.

I'm saying it's going to happen, because that's what recent rulings indicate. What's getting warned? Politics. Rach's satire. TGW's report, making a political point. TBH's report, making political points. These rulings discourage politics and encourage reports that are nothing more than "we hit these regions with this many people, and we think we're awesome, come be awesome with us."

We can all agree that OOC attacks are a problem in GP. The mods are obviously working on a solution. What you see as inconsistent seems like a pull towards a settled direction to me.

But "OOC attacks" aren't the focus here. Canton Empire called Funkadelia a racist and that was ruled not actionable. Instead we're getting warnings that are discouraging largely "in-character" politics. All of Reppy's thread-looming today has had nothing at all to do with OOC attacks.

Right now this is new, and anything any of us has to say is speculation. Neither of us can claim this is a disaster or the best thing to happen to NS yet because it's not even 24 hours old, and so far only TBH and TGW - R/D focused entities - have been on the receiving end of the change.

But while you're R/D focused entities, what you received warnings for was essentially being too political in your reports. You're right, we probably can't know for sure yet exactly how this is going to pan out, but we can look at the early implementation and see disturbing trends. It looks very much like Moderation is trying to turn Gameplay into the R/D forum and squeeze out politics, which they seem to view as toxic "baiting."

[Fennec]

I think on the whole, a more enforced environment would make more people more comfortable posting here.

It would make more people who aren't gameplayers more comfortable posting here. What you're talking about is a fundamental transformation of gameplay into something fluffier and friendlier. That isn't gameplay. It has never been gameplay. And while getting more RPers onto this forum might help you recruit them to join your midnight capture the flag games, it won't do anything for the political side of gameplay. Except ruin it.

I'll weigh in as a RPer.

Like many roleplayers, I took a firm stand against raiders back in the day. I've been known to call them bullies. I've likened their antics to "rape" of a region. Oh yeah, I went there.

But something changed my stance, Cormac. It wasn't that I grew tired and swapped sides. It was my disappointment.

I, like many roleplayers involved in gameplay, began to question the perceived community policies. Roleplayers believe in balance. We support GMs applying the rules unilaterally. We respect leaders when they apply those rules in gameplay. We can and do get behind the "black hat vs white hat" R/D concept; we can not get behind what many of us believe to be poor sportsmanship on the part of some players, nor their "sides" habit of overlooking it.

A great many of us [gameplayers] don't want a fluffier and friendlier gameplay. We want leaders to step up and attempt to shape it into something beyond /pol. We don't want an end to snark. We want to see those in leadership positions conduct themselves in a manner that reflects positively on their org - defender and raider alike - and which lends credibility to gameplay as a whole. We don't care about the politics found in regions. We care about how those politics are presented in public and the impact it has site-wide.

It would require a fundamental transformation in how leadership shapes gameplay. Mods aren't going to craft all the community standards and practices. Mods focus on the OSRS and enforce the only rules that matter - site rules which we all should conform to regardless of our haunt. We have to be the ones that examine the OSRS and craft our practices in a manner that doesn't go against it. We have to determine boundaries, not based upon our org's needs and aims and the pleasure our snark brings us, but for the benefit of gameplay. We, the community itself.

I don't see this effort as something that would ruin gameplay.

Edit:

If you must use "darkspawn", then keep it in context - your org's IC dispatches and battle reports.

I totally agree, that's where it belongs going forward from here. We *should* be restricting its use to contexts that use the org's theme, and even then, not overdoing it. However, we have no control over what others decide to do with the term, like with The Honest Defender posts. The most I can do is ask people in general not to use the term outside of regional reports/news and hope they comply.

In context, I really don't mind the term. Then again, I like the video game. TGW has put effort into crafting their org's canon to align with it, which is why I don't want to see it barred from regional reports/news... it absolutely fits.

Alright, if anything, I'd love to see more Dragon Age flavor in your reports/news. C'mon, guys, camp it up! You're sitting on a gold mine. I know you've got talented people capable of surpassing me as a writer.

[Raionitu]

Understood, Reppy. In the future, it will be mainly a fictional overview of battle, and less political commentary from Jinx's journal. Her thoughts were to set the tone for each side, and to portray how she views things. (Eventually, I might spruce up the dull "we hit this and that" tone with some romance, as well as some comedy.)

May I still use "hagfish" in an IC capacity? Example, when used in dialog: "The hagfish along the walls stood their ground," the Warlord complained. It's the equivalent to "darkspawn".

Also, thanks for the critique. I appreciate you setting boundaries.

The main issue (and main difference) is that "darkspawn" is a term that has also been accepted/used by the people being labeled with that term, and the term itself evokes, well, badass/metal "evil". Getting called "darkspawn" has a certain degree of notoriety/badass that goes with it, like "Yeah, we're the bad guys and we're really awesome at being the bad guys! The Dark One pwns you!"

The "hagfish" analogy doesn't have that same acceptance/use by the people being labeled with the term, and the analogy itself is quite gross and baity. Nobody is going to be able to take anything remotely awesome or fun out of being compared to a slime-producing bottom-feeder the way they might out of being compared to a creature of evil serving the forces of darkness/dark lord/etc. There are surely better analogies that could be concocted that can be read as bantering with the opposition without carrying such loaded phrasing.

Yea, I'm gonna say I was never really okay with the darkspawn thing. I just put up with it because it had seemed mods were okay with it. To me the whole thing seemed designed to try and demonize raiders, and I've seen some uses of it that appear to be aimed at convincing newcomers to GP that raiders are demons in the sense of, we're terrible people. Thankfully it hasn't been used that way much, and I'm fine with it being kept in a role play report type sense, but not if the only reason they get to do that and we don't is, "it's from a video game". If thats the logic I'll just go make an indie game called The Black Hawks and its about hunting hagfish. Because by this logic, that would make the use of the term hagfish acceptable.

[Consular]

The main thing I have to say is I found the overuse of the word "penetrating" in the piece of writing to be disconcerting and think it actually detracted from its intended effect.

[USS Monitor]

But "OOC attacks" aren't the focus here. Canton Empire called Funkadelia a racist and that was ruled not actionable. Instead we're getting warnings that are discouraging largely "in-character" politics. All of Reppy's thread-looming today has had nothing at all to do with OOC attacks.

Is THAT what you're referring to with all this "racist" stuff? Canton got warned for the original accusation on the RMB. His later forum posts asking if Funk had any comment were ruled not actionable, but the original accusation got a warning.

I can agree with that. As I've told some hawks, the context there matters. Your theme is wardens. It makes sense to call your opponents darkspawn, within that theme, when it's made clear you're not just randomly associating us with *insert traits of the characters here.* Likewise, if we came up with something similar that *contextually* made sense for Hawks, whether literal hawks or whatever particular form we characterize ourselves as (pilots, dark age mercs, etc), to be fighting, and posted in a way related to *updating* and not *random shots at OOC things*, it wouldn't get told off like Swith's post did. Hagfish had no sensical context, and the topic of the first half of that "IC" post was really anything but. That telling off/the distinction made, I think, is not unreasonable, nor a slippery slope.

Yeah... I think it's OK for you guys to write metaphorical posts about yourselves as hawks and your opponents as some critter that hawks hunt. Just don't go above and beyond to make the comparison as unflattering as possible, and be careful about drifting back and forth between talking about animals and talking about people. One problem with the "hagfish" stuff is that it was too explicit that it was comparing people to hagfish rather than talking about actual hagfish.

[The Black Hawks Raconteur]

IC C H A P T E R T W O The Ard always says that one doesn't become a soldier in a week - it takes training, study and discipline. He says that a famous man spoke those words. Inouye or something like that. I don’t know who or what an Inouye is, but he would have been a good Black Hawk. -excerpt from the Journal of Jinx, August 11th entry The feathers surrounding Jinx were her own, carefully plucked once she arrived home. She splayed them in front of her, and took them into her hands one by one to strip away the vane from its rachis. One’s own fletching helped arrows fly true, or so the Warlord always advised. Aengus settled beside her to carefully examine her handiwork. He didn’t expect perfection from any Ayes, but she was doing a damn good job. He opened his mouth to offer critique, but grew still as a large figure cast its shadow over them. “Jinx?” Warlord Rainer sounded somewhat drained. Feathers scattered as Jinx scrambled to her feet. A ball of dread settled into the pit of her stomach. He didn’t sound amused. “Yes, m’lord?” “Where were you tonight?” The tone wasn’t overly harsh. Jinx’s mouth opened, then shut, only to open once more. “Eeeh… out.” Rainer sighed. “Doing what?” ”Raiding, m’lord,” she muttered to her feet. Aengus rose and placed a comforting hand on the girl’s shoulder. “Sir, the Ayes wanted to hone their skills. With the Ard’s permission, we took flight.” Rainer’s arched brow squelched further explanation from the seasoned Acolyte. “I'm aware of the Ayes' adventures, Aengus. Where is your battle report, Jinx?” “For real?” the girl’s head snapped up to take in the Warlord’s countenance. There wasn’t any anger in his eyes. He merely folded his arms to patiently await her response. “Well…” Jinx had never given a proper report before. Her teeth captured her bottom lip, chewing it as she tried to frame her reply. “Okay. So we set out because Bhreac had picked a few targets so we could practice our timing. And our first one was Chat de Tortur Something. But when we got there, the walls were filled with ha-” “Jinx!” Aengus' hand cuffed the back of the girl’s head. “What did the Draoidh say about using that word for defenders?” “To not to,” she rubbed her head sheepishly, “Because Highest Divine is not pleased by the reference.” “Then don’t,” the Acolyte hissed. Raine rolled his eyes. “Battle report, Jinx!” She snapped to attention once more. “So we got to the first target, but it was defended. We moved on to Liberum-something, and it had ha- um, mice all over it. We couldn’t take that, so we changed course for Fuscha Empire. That was covered in parsnips, and we couldn’t win there.” “Mice and parsnips?” Rainer pursed his lips. “Try ‘defenders’, Jinx. The word won’t bite you.” “Yes sir.” She had lost her train of thought, however, and took to playing with her tunic hem to ease her nervousness. Several heartbeats passed before she could find it again. “Then we missed the next three because we were squirreling around, but we took United Nations of Arrakis!” The Warlord smiled. “Did you? Not bad, considering.” Jinx offered a small smile. “Thank you, m’lord. But the last three were two defended and a miss. We only brought Hawkdar’s Message to one region tonight.” “Let me get this straight,” Rainer’s brows furrowed. “Bhreac tried his hand at choosing targets and giving commands, and you Ayes moved to take a handful of regions despite your inexperience with timing?” Jinx’s fingers released the tunic fabric, and she blinked away tears. “Yes, Warlord Rainer.” “I’m proud of you.” “What?” She met his gaze once more. “Jinx, we don’t count our victories by just the number of regions we take, but also by the skills we hone while doing it. You gained the experience needed in order to improve.” The girl beamed. “I think Bhreac did a good job, m’lord. We worked really hard-” “Haven’t you got arrows to finish?” Rainer inquired, then paused as her expression fell. The Warlord breathed a sigh. “A hit is still a hit, however, and the Ayes did hit one region all on their own. I'll make an exception... this time." "Sir?" "Go post it in the Hallowed halls,” Rainer waved her away. Jinx's eyes lit up. Though her tiny training report would pale when compared to the seasoned Host's achievements in battle, the young Hawk embraced a surge of pride. "Yes, sir. Thank you!" The Warlord eyed her as she gamboled away. Youthful zeal would surely be the death of him.

OOC T R A I N I N GR E P O R T THE BLACK HAWKS Corporal Fabulous Rainicorns PFC Seahassee PFC Maleficaerum PFC Fennec THE VICTORIES United Nations of Arrakis

[Cormactopia Prime]

I, like many roleplayers involved in gameplay, began to question the perceived community policies. Roleplayers believe in balance. We support GMs applying the rules unilaterally. We respect leaders when they apply those rules in gameplay. We can and do get behind the "black hat vs white hat" R/D concept; we can not get behind what many of us believe to be poor sportsmanship on the part of some players, nor their "sides" habit of overlooking it.

See, I don't get behind the "black hat vs. white hat" R/D concept, because it isn't remotely political. It's Cops and Robbers, Cowboys and Indians, or as I've referred to it, just a twice daily game of capture the flag. I have no interest in gameplay that is that shallow; I can just go play any video game for conflict that shallow. My concern about the agenda being pushed by Moderation, and being backed up by some self-interested R/Ders like The Black Hawks and the Grey Wardens, is that it will force gameplay into being that shallow because that shallow level of gameplay is all that will be able to be expressed via this forum. Anything more political will be treated as "flamebaiting," which is exactly what we have seen happening with recent moderator rulings.

I don't think most of us are okay with "poor sportsmanship" in the sense of OOC attacks and toxicity. But this new concept is going quite a bit further than that. This new "attack the post, not the player" concept -- which, I will emphasize, most of the gameplayers endorsing it don't follow themselves -- will undermine gameplay politics. It isn't possible to engage in gameplay politics without criticizing individuals (particularly regional leaders), their ideas, and their behavior, in an in-character way. That has always been part of gameplay because you can't effectively have gameplay politics without it, so eliminating it from gameplay means eliminating a core component of gameplay politics and weakening political participation.

A great many of us [gameplayers] don't want a fluffier and friendlier gameplay. We want leaders to step up and attempt to shape it into something beyond /pol. We don't want an end to snark. We want to see those in leadership positions conduct themselves in a manner that reflects positively on their org - defender and raider alike - and which lends credibility to gameplay as a whole. We don't care about the politics found in regions. We care about how those politics are presented in public and the impact it has site-wide.

It's interesting to me that you continue to use the "defender and raider alike" dichotomy, which excludes anyone else from gameplay. That exclusion of neutrals, independents, imperialists, non-aligned, etc. is exactly what is going to happen if this trend continues, because everyone else involved in gameplay bases their gameplay on politics, not twice daily games of capture the flag -- essentially a button clicking competition.

The politics between regions -- which are presented in public, and have an impact on broader gameplay rather than just one region -- is the backbone of gameplay. When you're talking about a fundamental transformation of how that works, you're talking about a fundamental transformation of gameplay. You're talking about gameplay in which interaction between regions will be less political or even apolitical and more "sportsmanlike." But I don't want interaction between regions treated like a sport, and neither do most political gameplayers. The kind of gameplay that is being advocated lately is just watered down R/D, in which R/Ders leave it all out on the field twice a day and then go have a festival or something. I can't imagine anything more boring than gameplay becoming that. It isn't what gameplay has ever been or ever should be.

It would require a fundamental transformation in how leadership shapes gameplay. Mods aren't going to craft all the community standards and practices. Mods focus on the OSRS and enforce the only rules that matter - site rules which we all should conform to regardless of our haunt. We have to be the ones that examine the OSRS and craft our practices in a manner that doesn't go against it. We have to determine boundaries, not based upon our org's needs and aims and the pleasure our snark brings us, but for the benefit of gameplay. We, the community itself.

I don't see this effort as something that would ruin gameplay.

But you're new to gameplay, and by your own admission you don't like it as it is and want to change it, so would you really know what would ruin gameplay? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, after more than five years of gameplaying, I have a better grasp of what will ruin it.

Yes, we all have to follow the rules. No one is disputing that. But here's where things get murky: Where RPers are afforded leeway for in-character conflict, Moderation is now dismissing any need to recognize that gameplay also has its own distinct culture, and seems to be denying that there is any such thing as "in-character" for gameplayers. What has in the past been treated as in-character politicking is now being treated by Moderation as out-of-character "flamebaiting." So this is not a question of whether we all have to follow the rules -- yes, we do -- but rather a question of how the rules are being applied. We are now essentially being told that we are to be treated like General, without any recognition that in-character conflicts, criticism, etc., are legitimate. They're just "flamebaiting" now. That absolutely will ruin gameplay, and has already begun to ruin it.

On a separate note: Really? A report for a single tag raid? Good grief. I can't wait for stuff like this to be all that's posted here.

[Tim-Opolis]

On a separate note: Really? A report for a single tag raid? Good grief. I can't wait for stuff like this to be all that's posted here.

Would it make you more excited to know they gave up after twenty minutes and only had a 12.5% success rate?

[The Sygian]

On a separate note: Really? A report for a single tag raid? Good grief. I can't wait for stuff like this to be all that's posted here.

Would it make you more excited to know they gave up after twenty minutes and only had a 12.5% success rate?

Our trigger was new to putting the concept in practice and only planned on 10 targets. I'm sure he will appreciate the criticism, as he is trying to find ways to improve his ability. It really makes me happy to see seasoned R/Ders offering each other constructive criticism on how to improve their game!

On a more serious note, these types of report won't occur often but rather occasionally. Expect our shitposting to continue, under the guise of the Chronicles or not.

[Tim-Opolis]

On a more serious note, these types of report won't occur often but rather occasionally. Expect our shitposting to continue, under the guise of the Chronicles or not.

I do believe Cormac's criticism was not the OnderKelkia-sized TL;DR but the fact that you wrote that long of a report for one win. If there was actually worthwhile R/D content in the post, it'd be much more justifiable.

[snip about TBH training]

It's great that you're training new troops, really. However, let's not try to act like this being a tag run done by a new person makes it any more impressive. It still remains a ridiculously small amount of content to justify an update report from the Black Hawks. Furthermore, despite the common perception, triggering isn't difficult. However, if you'd like tips for your new person, I would recommend utilizing the whole update for practice. After all, you all begged for the extra fifteen minutes.