Star Wars Roleplay: Chaos

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Suggestion Invasions: criteria for judging

Specifically, the ooc drama/behavior portion.

In my experience, this is the ugliest side of invasions. There are groups who kick people out of their Discord during invasions in order to prevent leaks of "salt." There are people who aren't sure what they can and can't say, and there are people who rabidly take screenshots to put in the invasion summary so they can get a leg up and win this portion, or force a tie.

I believe this has put a stigma on negative feedback, and stunted our ability to creatively work out problems with people on the other side of the aisle.

It's perfectly normal to get frustrated and let things out. It's actually immensely ridiculous that people skirt around their feelings in order to appease a good behavior clause. And it actually has very little to do with the overall outcome of the story.

I suggest we axe the ooc conduct portion of the invasion judgment criteria entirely in favor of reestablishing communication and arbitration between sides.

Obviously, people who cross the line should be dealt with, but that's always been part of the site rules. Civility and respect are (or should be) the starting off point for all discourse. It shouldn't be a deciding factor when so many people are working together to foster a story.
 
Enlil Enlil While I see where you're coming from, the OOC portion of the invasion judgement plays a very important role. Its there to make factions play nice together and be respectful to eachother. Communication and arbitration between opposing sides is fine. Barring a few cases where the invasion itself is driven by OOC grudges, or where bad actors (and there will always be bad actors, in any community) go around starting a salt mining marathon, most factions seem to work together pretty well during invasions.

And yes, people should skirt around their feelings, if "letting things out" causes trouble for the other writers and disrupts the fun of the other participants. That is why etiquette clauses exist in society. To prevent bad actors from causing disruption.

The current judging system works fine. The OOC portion of the criteria is there to punish factions which don't play nice. If that clause didn't exist, we would see a lot more drama, as there would be no reason for factions to police themselves and maintain good behavior during invasions.
 
I don't think that forcing people to be nice is necessarily the best course of action, especially when you get things that go unsaid, and toxicity that festers behind the scenes.

If there's situations where people are invading solely for grudges and out of spite, then that's a whole other can of worms that the staff should look into.

Edit: I'm a firm believer in the freedom of association, which in turn lends to the freedom of disassociation. By enabling people to speak freely, you can see what they're really about. Then it's much easier to make a decision about if you really want to be associated with them.

I can promise you people will self regulate when their bad behavior starts closing doors.

Kainan Wolfe Kainan Wolfe
 
Last edited:
Won't lie, I have been a victim of people taking something I have said out of context, ran to show another person, had that person scrap me, then even though I clear my name the person defended the people because of supposed 'good intentions'. I would love nothing more than for karma to hurry up and work. However, just because you take this away, won't stop it.

I know for a fact that behind closed doors this tattle tailing practice is a tool used either just because people like telling dirty secrets or people use it to stay informed and gods know I hate it. I hate the 'puu puu puu on x person because x past mistake' or gods know what other reasons people kick around trash history like they don't have their own also kicked around. But people do this poo doo and believe me, I take no truck with it and have made people aware I will not do it.

Have I made comments of a behavior unbecoming, yes, but do I kick around old history because of salt people are too lazy or 'tired' from to change their actions? No.

Believe me when I say I feel you and I hope that the special individuals find themselves visited by karma because they chilled a friendship by a tooth or two and tried to label me with a tag I would gleefully use as a means to nail them with. But no.

All you can do, is see that your own community takes the high ground and does not lower themselves to that standard, even if that means making hard choices. Nothing worth doing is easy, otherwise we'd all make the necessary choices that lead to better things in our lives without first meeting regret as motivation.

My honesty gets me in the fire, but gods know that people can trust me to say to their face what I would say behind them, I don't have regrets even if I have few friends. Its a lonely place to stand, but I refuse to taint what I see as my little crumbs of integrity.
 
I think I can agree with Enlil Enlil with this.

But while I agree...I don't think removing it will change much. Simply saying if you wanna a chance at winning, you gotta play nice will not always work as intended.

I think invasions done in spite and with ill intent are what we should really be looking at.
 
I think I can agree with Enlil Enlil with this.

But while I agree...I don't think removing it will change much. Simply saying if you wanna a chance at winning, you gotta play nice will not always work as intended.

I think invasions done in spite and with ill intent are what we should really be looking at.

Thing is, that is a slippery slope there. Just because you accuse someone of being a witch, doesn't mean that they are. Yes, there are cases where the motivation for attack is clear consistently enough to point that finger based on evidence, but not always. Just because a thing looks like a thing, isn't always and that can be a messy situation right there.
 
Anse Baenshaol Anse Baenshaol I'd have to agree, and even then the majority of where the evidence is would be located in the voice channels or in some discord server that isn't on the staffs' radar, and it's hard to prove something is being done with spite without the clear cut evidence.

But it is a thing, and I think it's a good reason for things like invasion distance to be reworked. And spitefully made invasions should be watched out for regardless, there are times where the evidence is there for all to see.
 
I think you're mistaking "take away this rule so people will stop holding their tongues and say what they really mean" for "I'd really like everyone to be nice."

I don't care if people are nice or ugly, just that they don't fail to represent themselves in order to win an invasion.

My suggestion is to reopen conversations that have closed because we're encouraging people to censor themselves to curry favor. XYZ's screenshot should not be the deciding factor in A's invasion of B. No matter how sensitive the subject matter, that should be a matter solved by arbitration externally, if the situation is really that heinous.

I've literally watched invasions go down where one side is totally oblivious to the other side. Side 1 thinks this, Side 2 thinks that, but if they actually communicated, they'd both know for sure.

But we don't. Because communication is tantamount to salt. We smile, we nod, we trudge forward.

But we don't talk. God forbid.

First one to say what they mean gets screenshotted.
 
Anse Baenshaol Anse Baenshaol I'd have to agree, and even then the majority of where the evidence is would be located in the voice channels or in some discord server that isn't on the staffs' radar, and it's hard to prove something is being done with spite without the clear cut evidence.

But it is a thing, and I think it's a good reason for things like invasion distance to be reworked. And spitefully made invasions should be watched out for regardless, there are times where the evidence is there for all to see.

Except, given the ambiguity, how can you be sure? Accusations like this can have splash damage on innocent people and would only make people less likely to trust the very people who are being tasked with the onerous duty of judge. As I said, better to look to your own community and stand above, than to do something like this. I cannot stress enough that were I to be wholly honest about my feelings in regards to certain behaviors they would be significantly impolite because of the teeth.

I just cannot agree with something like that because of the consequences to bystanders. Its easy to demand others to change, harder to change yourself or the community to which the self belongs.

----

I think you're mistaking "take away this rule so people will stop holding their tongues and say what they really mean" for "I'd really like everyone to be nice."

I don't care if people are nice or ugly, just that they don't fail to represent themselves in order to win an invasion.

My suggestion is to reopen conversations that have closed because we're encouraging people to censor themselves to curry favor. XYZ's screenshot should not be the deciding factor in A's invasion of B. No matter how sensitive the subject matter, that should be a matter solved by arbitration externally, if the situation is really that heinous.

I've literally watched invasions go down where one side is totally oblivious to the other side. Side 1 thinks this, Side 2 thinks that, but if they actually communicated, they'd both know for sure.

But we don't. Because communication is tantamount to salt. We smile, we nod, we trudge forward.

But we don't talk. God forbid.

First one to say what they mean gets screenshotted.

I try to be polite, while giving my opinions. Not everyone has the intestinal fortitude for such honesty and, frankly even I know that my honesty can breed fluffed fur with much spitting. 100% in a society that is built on smiles that hide knives, meaning irl, translated to a forum? How can you be sure, because internet, that the honesty you so desire, is in fact honest?

I would love whole heartedly if people would just do as I do, would make life incredibly less confusing, but that isn't going to happen. As I said, you want the change look to your circles and lead by example and as more people do it, that will become the new norm.
 
Last edited:
I think you're mistaking "take away this rule so people will stop holding their tongues and say what they really mean" for "I'd really like everyone to be nice."

I don't care if people are nice or ugly, just that they don't fail to represent themselves in order to win an invasion.

My suggestion is to reopen conversations that have closed because we're encouraging people to censor themselves to curry favor. XYZ's screenshot should not be the deciding factor in A's invasion of B. No matter how sensitive the subject matter, that should be a matter solved by arbitration externally, if the situation is really that heinous.

I've literally watched invasions go down where one side is totally oblivious to the other side. Side 1 thinks this, Side 2 thinks that, but if they actually communicated, they'd both know for sure.

But we don't. Because communication is tantamount to salt. We smile, we nod, we trudge forward.

But we don't talk. God forbid.

First one to say what they mean gets screenshotted.

I uh...I think I dig.



Except, given the ambiguity, how can you be sure? Accusations like this can have splash damage on innocent people and would only make people less likely to trust the very people who are being tasked with the onerous duty of judge. As I said, better to look to your own community and stand above, than to do something like this. I cannot stress enough that were I to be wholly honest about my feelings in regards to certain behaviors they would be significantly impolite because of the teeth.

I just cannot agree with something like that because of the consequences to bystanders. Its easy to demand others to change, harder to change yourself or the community to which the self belongs.

You're not wrong at all.

It's just one of the biggest problems with such a large community, at some point your going to find yourself on the side with the person doing things that are highly questionable, and even if you decide its not a place you want to be...you could still end up in a thread that is being decided later on in life based on that person's actions again. No matter what, on the internet you will find yourself around it at some point or another....le sigh am I right?
 
You're not wrong at all.

It's just one of the biggest problems with such a large community, at some point your going to find yourself on the side with the person doing things that are highly questionable, and even if you decide its not a place you want to be...you could still end up in a thread that is being decided later on in life based on that person's actions again. No matter what, on the internet you will find yourself around it at some point or another....le sigh am I right?

Gods yes. People can be so... Ugh. Which is why I can only change myself and wish it was enough to make me feel less stabby. Because the urge to stab is strong in this one.
 
Violations of the rules should be handled in Invasions the same way they are handled outside of it. As it is, the OOC/Drama portion is competitive snitching. I definitely understand the thought behind that portion, but I think it's better off just being removed and if someone crosses the line, the Staff team will handle them appropriately.
 
I agree that people shouldn't have to necessarily censor themselves. I think the inclusion of the OOC/DRAMA section also leads to people trying to use that good old passive aggression [which for some reason people treat like its less offensive than being honest] to goad others into saying things that will discredit them or could be used in the OOC/DRAMA section.

I think it ain't necessary. And the removal of it will keep more people honest and to be frank Chaos could use a good feckin' dose of truth serum.
 
Well-Known Member
No thanks, I prefer held tongues over the open flame wars we used to have in the past.

If there is animosity behind closed doors, but everyone else is spared it, I find that much preferable to everyone having to read or hear about that toxic drivel.
 
Well-Known Member
Enlil Enlil I know what was said, I would still prefer "competitive snitching" over what was happening before this change was put into place. If I can go through an invasion without problems of my own, and without having to hear the "he said she said" bull from someone else, that's a good invasion in my eyes.

Self-censorship is good, any other kind is bad. A rule could potentially be broken if you want to end self-censorship, but such things have more consequences for others beyond yourself, OOC rule, or not.

We are a community, and this rule keeps it cleaner during the messiest parts of the board.

Maybe I'm in the minority here with that opinion, but I don't think that I am.
 
I dunnnnnnnnnnno

I see your point and hell I think you're right-- this need to play nice makes us speak through teeth and not always be 100%

but it also gives levity to the knee jerk frustrations and reactions people have. It gives us a reason to BE the bigger person and to try and find better ways of communicating.

If someone decides to communicate through their teeth and tell half truths, that's on them. They have the option to be honest but polite in public. PMs I think are fair game for the emotional side of things and I encourage everyone to healthily work through moments like that in there.

But for faction health, the ooc portion of ruling gives people a reason to be their best selves in public. And that precedence is a good thing. If someone is being a drama jerk ooc I think they deserve to lose points, it kills the story for everyone. And if I HAVE to work with someone regardless of my feelings for them, there should be a precedent that they have to be polite or see consequences.

Ya feel?

Solid point, but I think we should work on people communicating more honestly over just taking the gloves off all together. It protects people!


good thought, fam
 
This is an interesting discussion, with valid points across the board. Please do continue to discuss this.

I would however like to push the discussion away from "Snitching Wars" and "My opinion cus here is why." into a better territory where we can find a suitable replacement/Rewording of the rule/Discussion on changes.
  • Completely be gone with the rule? If so, what will replace it/if any?
  • Just change up the wording/provide clarity for what OOC/Drama constitutes as? What do you think would need to be reworked?
  • Keep it as is? Maybe provide clarity or leave it completely alone and untouched?
  • Any other points that could be looked at within this section of the Invasion criteria?
Keep up the suggestions and questions.
 
I don't think Chaos socially is in a good place in some corners and the competitive snitching is just one branch of the big old tree of gossip and whatnot. If someone doesn't like someone, I'd rather they'd say it than complain about it in another chat. Let's not pretend people aren't petty and cruel and don't try to excise their will on those they don't like.

The less backdoor dealings and 'protection' of those who speak out of turn behind someone's back, the better. I'll admit, I've put forward OOC stuff in a invasion/rebellion sense in that category. But that was an instance of outright insults/lying rather than someone breaking a sweat.

Not everyone can keep their cool 100%. Sometimes people can get defensive, but rather than trying to scoop that up as a 'point' in your favour you should try and communicate. I think maybe if OOC behaviour was bad enough to really warrant a loss of points that would effect the Invasion's victory regardless of whether a OOC section is included or not.
 
:: HERO of KORRIBAN ::
Moderator
As always, there are reasons certain criteria exist. Many of those offering opinions here have seen those reasons first hand. And while it has been suggested here that staff should look into factions who invade for OOC reasons, or personal vendettas, you can’t always prove that‘s the reason. There is also the fact every invasion is OOC to a degree, even if the reason is purely, “I want an invasion.”

At its core the map game is as much OOC as it IC. The criteria itself is designed, based on my reading of it, to encourage collaborative role play, and should always result in a tie. There are instances where it won’t, and shouldn’t, and the mechanism needs to be there for those instances.

I would pose that the criteria for judgement is not what is keeping people from collaborative roleplay, nor would removing solve the issue raised here. Regardless, this criteria has made invasions significantly less sodium filled from the days when PvP was all that mattered and faction owners had to fight over who won what PvP or PvE objective.

In the end it has brought more to benefit than caused problems. If we are honest with ourselves, having the criteria or not isn’t going to change toxic or salty people, and it certainly isn’t going to get rid of the screen cap culture.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom