Jump to content

Positive Environment.


Recommended Posts

I've decided we need to wipe the slate clean and start over. Perhaps avoid creating any more discussions for now, and I apologize for creating one that seemed to cause quite a mess. Sadly I'm somewhat blunt and heavy handed at the best of times, I'm not good with being delicate on how I deliver my points, view or arguments but I try not to be bitter with any of you. I assure you, that all of you I have the sincerest respect for and appreciate your thoughts on what is correct and what is appropriate.

And I'm not saying this as if I'm on the moral high ground, in fact I'm probably at the foot of the wall chucking rocks over the top, just to see what happens. I'm saying this, because I forget how delicate the peace can be, how ethics, be it for a pretend space station with pretend policies can be incredibly sensitive. To the point, where we don't seem to argue against each other's points but simply against each other. If we are to stop passive aggressiveness, toxicity and bitterness then we must combat it with sincerity, tact and empathy. And this is including me to, so don't think I'm giving you a lecture.

Now let's put past threads aside that have surpassed their welcome and put unresolved issues aside for now. Perhaps it is bad to leave such issues resolved, but at the moment it isn't the right time to hit them head on. Before all else, we'll need to be little more cohesive with each other. I know this sounds like the bullshit you'd hear at the nearest Hippie Commune, but I firmly believe we can work together to create a stronger sense of... community?

So give me a hand? Give each other a hand and let's just make it a little more enjoyable to log onto the forums because at the moment, it's somewhat depressing.

Link to comment

I can honestly say that one of the reasons why certain discussions drag on and on is because the core of the issues is not being framed properly.

I've been a bit guilty of wanting to fight every fight there is to fight (rather than picking my battles and sticking to the most important topics), but one thing I've noticed (most recently in the threads regarding "IC dick characters" and Sue) is that I've tried to formulate the core issue, other people have tried too, but these discussions get ignored in favor of the much more entertaining (and inflammatory) one of slinging accusations at each other.

Of course, these discussions won't head anywhere, because in the case of the Sue threads, the core issue was an undecided one - whether we should allow people to be dicks ICly or not. And you can spend forever arguing about a single person's actions - as long as there's no clearly set rules or policies, there is no "correct" side to that debate.

I believe people need to understand that. They need to get a good understanding of their outrage, ask themselves /why/ they are outraged, and clearly formulate the reasons for that outrage, so that others have a chance to understanding the point of view they're presenting, and achieve a consensus together.

It's a two-way street. Even if you don't like someone, don't see them as your enemy. See them as someone you have to work with, and if you do your best to work with them, no harm may fall upon you. Worst case, if the other user keeps being unreasonable, they'll get the boot. And if not, then we can all get along, and that'll be grand.

Link to comment

Hm. I don't think anyone would really complain too much about IC dicks tbh. There's a lot of IC dicks people don't mind, but on subject I'll mention the following.


I think it's the blurring of OOC and IC that bothers people. Problem #1 is people often vent OOC aggression via IC, so it makes people weary of "Is it roleplay or is that person being an ass?" especially if someone has a reputation for doing such a thing, etc. Another issue is bias, some people get away with more than others because of x reason. Third issue is the distinction between fun roleplay and non-fun roleplay, and what the ideal balance is. Another issue is self-inserts, some people alter the flow of RP of the game by causing issues like Problem #1, and I understand people treat SS13 like a second life of sorts, to meditate depression or boredom from their current lives - which is understandable. And another issue is non-consideration of others' roleplay (IE: ganking, pre-mature round ending) that isn't resolved.

Lastly, the removal of the positive environment is not via the forum bickering, but the events causing the forum bickering themselves. The arguments are merely a symptom of repressed anger/resentment/mistrust caused by unresolved issues - which is human and can be resolved naturally once the catalyst causing it to happen is removed.


Considering the OP post. If a patient is brought into medbay with a septic limb that is causing toxin damage - they're still stable, do you continually inject them with anti-toxin hoping it will go down for good, or do you remove the septic limb and treat it after?

Consider the issues causing the rift between the community as the septic limb. Unless they are dealt with, people will be people. Even if you were to remove the specific people in the incidents, newer people with the same issues with take their place.

Link to comment

Arguments are a good thing. Two people believe in opposite things. An argument breaks out. One bends or they stop. What is the result? Either one changes their mind or both person's beliefs are strenghtened. Either way, nothing was really lost. We discuss them so that staff in charge of implamentation can have a better idea of where the opinions or whatever passes as truth lie.

You're probably refering to cloning threads that were closed on someones request. Fine, even though I don't think everyone said what they wanted to say. I may seem passive agressive, but that's more passion and frustration speaking than hate. At the end of the discussion, I can sit and play spessman with you. Because, I don't hate people, I hate ideas and concepts. Especially if they are being shuehorned.

Yes, I may seem a hypocrit because I wrote something similar to what you wrote a while ago. Well, I've changed my mind. Because I AM willing to change my mind. So I tolerate people being as loud as they wish, allowing them to vent their frustration over the topic and then calm down. This is how issues are resolved.

Instead, people are shut down for being angry, told to stop being passive agressive, all the while things they are trying to say are being ignored in the discussion. This is where the issue is, people are labeled as angry or depressed nutters, or sissies for no reason than being passionate about things. Like you probably will be, like people who complained at Sue were, like Francis who complained at people complaining at Sue is.

Don't interprit this as passive agressive, please, even though I have been at times. I honestly think that all the argueing we do is good for the community, because shit is being done. I may be a radical, it may seem I shout people down (as Icognito pointed out), but, I'm willing to let people be as loud as they want in turn. It's up to everyone to conlude what is right or wrong. It's the people who refuse to change that are the problem.

Link to comment

I'm certain I'll be told to stop but I'll have to disagree with you once again on several points, Bokaza.

I can get into arguments and while I got into that argument I hold nothing against you. So we can agree that fine we'll disagree but oh well. That's going to happen. But I definitely disagree on the way the argument unfolded. I understand where you were coming from with your position that it should be actively regulated on board and we can be self sustaining. However what I also got from that was "I'm captain, what I say goes." What's funny to me is that before those threads popped up I never thought twice about a captain issuing a DNC. I always just thought "You got it, Cappy". But then I thought about it and realized the legal implications of that. And my stance on it formed from my observation of the laws today.

Thats one point. So maybe we didn't say what we -really- wanted to but I think our points got across. I still think you're wrong and I'm fairly certain you think I'm wrong. And that's fine. Suppose we'll just see what comes of it IC.

That's one point.

Link to comment

I get crucified when I make a mistake as a Captain. I am willing to deal with that responsibility, but I'm not getting crucified for something that is out of my control, which did and will happen again. I cannot stop myself from being completely unbiased and neither can you. I play HoP, HoS and Cap. I know where their limits and obligations lie. You play CMO. Xander, I'm pretty sure they play all of the heads, so putting something as 'all command staff vote' doesn't really effect them. None of us has a perfect viewpoint.

You've hammered at the point that no one can choose who lives or dies while officers make that choice every time they press the trigger. CC is not god. They are corporate headquarters and represent themselves, while Captain represents their will on station. They are not more qualified to make the dicision than Captain or CMO. This points to the next issue then. No one made fuss of how highly unpractical and stupid the whole idea of mandatory CC confirmation is. Yes, they should be asked, probably will be, but someone needs to reserve the right to make the decision when it's needed. This is the role of the Captain.

I will not derail this thread any further, if you want to continue this discussion, send a PM, someone already did over me daring to question the usefullness of almighty CC.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...