NationStates

It's not an OOC attack by any means, but it's just plain mean nevertheless.

Badivermeraed wrote:It's not an OOC attack by any means, but it's just plain mean nevertheless.

So this mean but occupying someone’s region who doesn’t want to play your game, to the point that long term NSers quit or get mod-bombed for flaming you is all good and fair game? Got it.

Smh

Numero Capitan wrote:

Badivermeraed wrote:It's not an OOC attack by any means, but it's just plain mean nevertheless.

So this mean but occupying someone’s region who doesn’t want to play your game, to the point that long term NSers quit or get mod-bombed for flaming you is all good and fair game? Got it.

Smh

Sorry is your stance that because raiding is mean defenders can single people out for ridicule in mean ways too?

Numero Capitan wrote:

Badivermeraed wrote:It's not an OOC attack by any means, but it's just plain mean nevertheless.

So this mean but occupying someone’s region who doesn’t want to play your game, to the point that long term NSers quit or get mod-bombed for flaming you is all good and fair game? Got it.

Sighs Audibly

This comment feels wrong on so many levels.

Numero Capitan wrote:Dyll tried to be to clever to sneak some wins and lost, I’m sure they can own that or they wouldn’t have taken the risks

OOC attack, umm nope, pretty shameful to describe it in those terms. Let’s reserve that terminology for actual issues please.

Speaking of shameful, this report is pretty shameful for defenders to put out.

Agalaesia wrote:

Numero Capitan wrote:
So this mean but occupying someone’s region who doesn’t want to play your game, to the point that long term NSers quit or get mod-bombed for flaming you is all good and fair game? Got it.

Sighs Audibly

This comment feels wrong on so many levels.

I mean just answer his question.

"Yes."

I take it TGW had a good update defending, kinda a weird way to post the update but whatevs.

The Notorious Mad Jack wrote:

Numero Capitan wrote:
So this mean but occupying someone’s region who doesn’t want to play your game, to the point that long term NSers quit or get mod-bombed for flaming you is all good and fair game? Got it.

Smh

Sorry is your stance that because raiding is mean defenders can single people out for ridicule in mean ways too?

It’s some dodgy sensitivity from a group that is built on doing mean IC things. Fees like sour grapes more than genuine concern.

People need to learn how to take an L, we all get em in this game.

Numero Capitan wrote:

Badivermeraed wrote:It's not an OOC attack by any means, but it's just plain mean nevertheless.

So this mean but occupying someone’s region who doesn’t want to play your game, to the point that long term NSers quit or get mod-bombed for flaming you is all good and fair game? Got it.

Smh

Um, okay. The point was about the report needlessly targeting dyll, but alright.

Refuge Isle wrote:I don't speak for anyone but myself in this post, but I don't consider it a positive point for TGW to specifically single out members of an org to personally attack or shame them. That kind of stuff goes into OOC territory and in my opinion is thoroughly beyond the scope of what largely IC update reports should involve.

Because TBH would never single out members of an org to personally attack or shame them. If you truly felt that pointing out IC incompetence, as we all do all the time, is an out of character attack, I'd expect you to report it to moderation. I'd also suggest that you log out of the game and allow your nations to CTE as you clearly have lost any perspective as to what is In-Character and what is Out of Character. I'm honestly dumbfounded how anyone can tolerate this hypocritical faux-moralism that TBH comes up with time and time again.

Dyll, I'm sure you're a lovely person. You done fucked up in your gameplay last night, as we all do from time to time. I hope you read our post and said to yourself "fuck those guys, Imma show 'em next chance I get", because that's honestly how I expect anyone to react. I also invite you, and anyone else who may have been offended by this most recent report, to join our discord server and judge for themselves if we're as mean-spirited as we're being made out to be.

Bit of a difference to target organisations rather than individual, lower-level members. It's crass and just makes you guys look bad. But sure, perspective.

Numero Capitan wrote:

The Notorious Mad Jack wrote:Sorry is your stance that because raiding is mean defenders can single people out for ridicule in mean ways too?

It’s some dodgy sensitivity from a group that is built on doing mean IC things. Fees like sour grapes more than genuine concern.

People need to learn how to take an L, we all get em in this game.

As Numero correctly points out, it's well established that raiders don't have feelings. I, for one, welcome the constructive criticism of Dyll's continued playing of the game. Dyll can now re-dedicate themself to the great task remaining before us: the destruction of native communities.

Numero Capitan wrote:

The Notorious Mad Jack wrote:Sorry is your stance that because raiding is mean defenders can single people out for ridicule in mean ways too?

It’s some dodgy sensitivity from a group that is built on doing mean IC things. Fees like sour grapes more than genuine concern.

People need to learn how to take an L, we all get em in this game.

We're fine with the L, it happens (especially on my runs)

What people are having a problem with is the report spent trashing one of the updaters (and point some of the time) specifically by name, rather than the organization, actual leadership, or even the trigger.

Refuge Isle wrote:That kind of stuff goes into OOC territory

ah yes mhm poking fun at someone for being bad at tagging is very OOC even though calling out (lack of) tagging skill is literally the definition of IC, yup makes perfect sense to me!

Sweeze wrote:

Refuge Isle wrote:That kind of stuff goes into OOC territory

ah yes mhm poking fun at someone for being bad at tagging is very OOC even though calling out (lack of) tagging skill is literally the definition of IC, yup makes perfect sense to me!

I will just repost what I said in a discord server:

I don't think that is an inaccurate statement. Making an entire raid report that focuses almost exclusively on one player does get into questionable intent of coming off like going after the person. Yes, it is for IC reasons, but there is definitely a blend of some OOC elements there. Often, GP blends the two together so I'm not saying this is totally out of the ordinary. But as far as I can remember, I don't recall the last time a report focused so much on one person and one person who was not in a leadership role. GP can be hard to sort of figure out the right blend of toeing the line. I get that is hard and I think this probably would have been more acceptable if the post had a bit more substance than going after Dyll multiple times.

Sweeze wrote:

Refuge Isle wrote:That kind of stuff goes into OOC territory

ah yes mhm poking fun at someone for being bad at tagging is very OOC even though calling out (lack of) tagging skill is literally the definition of IC, yup makes perfect sense to me!

It isn't necessary to single out members of an opposing faction, especially when they are not the leadership of the faction (or even the raid). Where an entire update report spends its time shitting on that member, there's little possible utilities there. Either it's meant to directly hurt the updater, or it's meant to say that the org should be embarrassed to have such an updater (and hurt the updater indirectly that way). Either way, it does TGW no credit, and NuCa's post saying that any raiding justifies effects such as these is certainly political gymnastics beyond my athleticism.

Benevolent Thomas wrote:

Refuge Isle wrote:I don't speak for anyone but myself in this post, but I don't consider it a positive point for TGW to specifically single out members of an org to personally attack or shame them. That kind of stuff goes into OOC territory and in my opinion is thoroughly beyond the scope of what largely IC update reports should involve.

Because TBH would never single out members of an org to personally attack or shame them. If you truly felt that pointing out IC incompetence, as we all do all the time, is an out of character attack, I'd expect you to report it to moderation. I'd also suggest that you log out of the game and allow your nations to CTE as you clearly have lost any perspective as to what is In-Character and what is Out of Character. I'm honestly dumbfounded how anyone can tolerate this hypocritical faux-moralism that TBH comes up with time and time again.

Reiterating that my posts are my own and relatively free of Jakker's mysterious mind control, while I recognise that the report is not illegal, it's certainly within my capacity to say that it's in poor taste. There's a fundamental difference between criticising the abilities of an org at large and targeting members because you can. No doubt it's easy for anyone to find where this has happened before, yet it's still my personal stance that the two should be kept separate. That stance doesn't change based on the authorship of the report in question. But yes, I agree that the environment of NSGP is not the best fit for me.

There was a time in my life where I would have easily understood or possibly written a report like this. But that mindset wasn't a healthy outlook for myself and did more harm than I was aware, and ultimately wasn't who I wanted to be. Anywhoozle, thanks for coming to my TED Talk, back to everyone's posturing

Benevolent Thomas wrote:

Refuge Isle wrote:I don't speak for anyone but myself in this post, but I don't consider it a positive point for TGW to specifically single out members of an org to personally attack or shame them. That kind of stuff goes into OOC territory and in my opinion is thoroughly beyond the scope of what largely IC update reports should involve.

Because TBH would never single out members of an org to personally attack or shame them. If you truly felt that pointing out IC incompetence, as we all do all the time, is an out of character attack, I'd expect you to report it to moderation. I'd also suggest that you log out of the game and allow your nations to CTE as you clearly have lost any perspective as to what is In-Character and what is Out of Character. I'm honestly dumbfounded how anyone can tolerate this hypocritical faux-moralism that TBH comes up with time and time again.

Dyll, I'm sure you're a lovely person. You done fucked up in your gameplay last night, as we all do from time to time. I hope you read our post and said to yourself "fuck those guys, Imma show 'em next chance I get", because that's honestly how I expect anyone to react. I also invite you, and anyone else who may have been offended by this most recent report, to join our discord server and judge for themselves if we're as mean-spirited as we're being made out to be.

I think there is very much a difference between your example and this one. The issue I take with this report in particular is it doesn't target someone who was leading the tag run and the report is largely focused on them and nothing else. Are we going to make it a habit of these types of reports, or what? That's why I find this report shameful. And yeah, losses happen. As we all experience from time to time. But this kind of thing just comes more off as harsh, demeaning and overall not cool.

Also, to put this as aside, I would react and fully expect each side of gameplay to react like this if a raider group, TBH or not, posted this type of report.

This is the kind of thing which takes away from actual OOC stuff. I don't think it's very nice highlighting a specific players failures at R/D and wouldn't love it if it happened to me (there are plenty of times I've done worse and I'm not quite a noob now), but it's attacking the in game actions of the player.

I think that calling this "OOC Toxic" or anything synonymous takes away from issues surrounding people who are legitimately OOC problematic. As someone who is regularly shit on for being a bad updater, I understand any emotions that Dyllonia (who I consider to actually be quite a good updater, nice person, and great trigger!) is experiencing. Though I hope that everyone takes into account that this post was made in an incredibly shitposty nature and is supposed to be entirely in good fun.

Flanderlion wrote:This is the kind of thing which takes away from actual OOC stuff. I don't think it's very nice highlighting a specific players failures at R/D and wouldn't love it if it happened to me (there are plenty of times I've done worse and I'm not quite a noob now), but it's attacking the in game actions of the player.

Frenchy II wrote:I think that calling this "OOC Toxic" or anything synonymous takes away from issues surrounding people who are legitimately OOC problematic. As someone who is regularly shit on for being a bad updater, I understand any emotions that Dyllonia (who I consider to actually be quite a good updater, nice person, and great trigger!) is experiencing. Though I hope that everyone takes into account that this post was made in an incredibly shitposty nature and is supposed to be entirely in good fun.

For the record, I don't see anyone calling this OOC or toxic. Refuge has already explained their post and I also added to it. So really at this point, these other conversations are just taking away from valid criticism.

damn when raidas become soft as fuck???? pathetic

I don’t think the purpose of that update, nor its author’s intent, was to make Dyll feel bad. It was probably seen as friendly banter between competing sides.

Was it appropriate? I re-read the text of the update a couple of times. It makes fun of a failure, and it’s quite public. But I don’t think it demeans or bullies Dyll in a targeted way, nor makes him the target of *personal* ridicule. I also don’t think it’s particularly out of step with similar communications other groups put out.

Personally I don’t see the utility in highlighting an individual player’s failures if they are not going to take it in that positive, banterish way. And there is a lot of cultural context here.

We have had, and I would wager continue to have, a problem with how we interact with each other.

People develop strong feelings about Gameplay. We push the IC/OOC distinction, but as here these feelings can run strong even if it’s not ‘harassment’ or similar. Sometimes there is friendly competition, but other times people do get quite invested. And people do sometimes inflict personal jibes at people. We for years celebrated a player whose modus operandi was to make people feel like shit.

In this context, it would be appropriate for TGW to note that no hurt was intended, withdraw the update, and leave it at that.

Perhaps in the future we’ll have a better gameplay culture where it’s easier to interact in the context of the game without introducing negative personal feelings. We’re not there yet.

Guy wrote:I don’t think the purpose of that update, nor its author’s intent, was to make Dyll feel bad. It was probably seen as friendly banter between competing sides.

Was it appropriate? I re-read the text of the update a couple of times. It makes fun of a failure, and it’s quite public. But I don’t think it demeans or bullies Dyll in a targeted way, nor makes him the target of *personal* ridicule. I also don’t think it’s particularly out of step with similar communications other groups put out.

Personally I don’t see the utility in highlighting an individual player’s failures if they are not going to take it in that positive, banterish way. And there is a lot of cultural context here.

We have had, and I would wager continue to have, a problem with how we interact with each other.

People develop strong feelings about Gameplay. We push the IC/OOC distinction, but as here these feelings can run strong even if it’s not ‘harassment’ or similar. Sometimes there is friendly competition, but other times people do get quite invested. And people do sometimes inflict personal jibes at people. We for years celebrated a player whose modus operandi was to make people feel like shit.

In this context, it would be appropriate for TGW to note that no hurt was intended, withdraw the update, and leave it at that.

Perhaps in the future we’ll have a better gameplay culture where it’s easier to interact in the context of the game without introducing negative personal feelings. We’re not there yet.

I genuinely think you have an excellent point, thank you. I just wanted to post that.

Choa wrote:damn when raidas become soft as fuck???? pathetic

go back to the abyss pls

also

Guy wrote:<snip>

Guy, when you give good takes, you give the best takes
bravo

The Notorious Mad Jack wrote:

Numero Capitan wrote:
So this mean but occupying someone’s region who doesn’t want to play your game, to the point that long term NSers quit or get mod-bombed for flaming you is all good and fair game? Got it.


Smh

Sorry is your stance that because raiding is mean defenders can single people out for ridicule in mean ways too?

This should be the case yes

Glad this has been ironed out a bit more, a single jibe at one person for their own actions is not deserving of a mob of people from the same region making attacks about the post in unnecessary terms (come and defend their actions or take some responsibility for the mistakes if you want but this wasn't that).

If it was a pattern of targeted mocking it might be overstepping a line but this ain't that. I'm not particularly one to shitpost but TGW adopted that in response to your side doing exactly that (which TBH continue to do too).

If you have actual concerns about OOC issues you contact senior leaders about it privately, especially in an experienced, OOC conscious region like TGW. You don't throw it in the mix whilst you're kicking up dirt to see what sticks. Sure, Dyll is great and you don't like seeing a good person being the butt of a joke. But it is a joke (whether you think its funny or not) and we all have to own our actions and failures a little (and I'm sure everyone on this game is capable of that).