+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Role-Playing (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Forum: Official Player Factions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=60)
+---- Forum: Bretonia (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=74)
+----- Forum: BAF| (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=124)
+----- Thread: Bretonian Armed Forces Feedback (/showthread.php?tid=14007)
RE: Bretonian Armed Forces Feedback - Levenna - 04-05-2023
(04-05-2023, 03:48 AM)Darius Wrote: but in some affairs I reserve the right to question the member in regards to his behaviour elsewhere if said behaviour is any in way related to another person in the faction or to the faction itself.
For me personally, the larger issue isn't what you did, though I don't wholly agree there either, it's the standards and methodology that you did it with. Putting aside other forum behaviour which is a whole can of worms in and of itself, and focusing solely on the incident with Kalh, is it your honest belief as a member of a faction's high command that calling out said behaviour in the middle of a discord is really the best way to resolve that conflict?
Did it cross your mind to resolve the matter in private/DMs where it might not have exploded into, well, this, frankly? Did you make any effort to try to understand his upset or where it might be coming from? Because those are both really critical parts of conflict resolution, and therefore a really critical part of leading any group, online or otherwise. Making someone feel persecuted in pseudo-public is not the way to bring them around. Reach out to them in private, without an accusatory tone. You can be firm, mind you, that's absolutely doable, but being accusatory will only make the situation worse. There is a massive difference to me between "Where my and Markam's bias about Bretonia." and demanding he present evidence as if this is some kind of trial by law, and DMing "Hey, what you're posting on the forum isn't going to fly if you keep doing it, we need to sort this out, where's this coming from?"
That's the methodology that, from my outsider's perspective, is in dire need of improvement above all else.
RE: Bretonian Armed Forces Feedback - Darius - 04-05-2023
I'm gonna be frank, there's little to understand from talking to him due to:
a) his accusations of me attempting to use my dev position to gain advantages for the house;
b) the fact he pulled the "freedom of speech" card instead of even remotely thinking before writing a response down;
c) his attitude in the past concerning this faction (past events where he almost caused a conflict between Liberty and Breotnia when Joe was a Fleet Admiral; his accusations of me attempting to "coup" BretGov with BAF| just to start a war with Liberty);
d) the general behaviour of this individual in the Discovery Freelancer community.
I absolutely understand and sympathize with the thought that point d) shouldn't be enforced except in extreme cases i.e. DDOS attempts, etc, but the other three points remain fair and square to keep track of.
The reason I did decide to contact him over the general channel of our faction chat is because the matter concerns the faction as a whole, not just a singular person. This has been also the process in past cases where the HC would talk to the person openly, as a "closed doors" policy is not productive for the long-term cooperation of the members. Furthermore, discussing it publicly would also leave the gate open for other individuals to argument their own position on the matter and thus, indirectly, help us in figuring out how to deal with the situation.
I, and by extent, the HC, will continue to uphold this approach for as long as there are active members in the faction, as doing otherwise would lead to an unnecessary detachment from the people that matter in reality (active people).
I would like to close this chapter by reiterating my previous position on the topic. As long as members of the BAF| player faction continue to be around, we will enforce a policy of "maintaining respect" towards other players, regardless of their status as developers, contributors, faction leaders, or what have you, unless the other party to the discussion breaks this rule of thumb and acts in ways that may not be well received by our players.
The standing question about whether or not this was handled correctly will receive a simple answer, that being a yes. While I agree that there certainly is need for improvement on the tone used, I also don't believe that pulling a victim card and expecting to be suddenly believed is a profoundly thought-out attempt to prove your point. Discovery, overall, needs to grow beyond the point of "crying loudest and waiting to simply get your ideas accepted". That's not how groups work. That's not how BAF will work, either.
At any rate, I am thankful for the feedback provided on the topic.
RE: Bretonian Armed Forces Feedback - Czechmate - 04-05-2023
Did you just give yourself feedback in the feedback thread and then say you are grateful for the feedback?
RE: Bretonian Armed Forces Feedback - Darius - 04-05-2023
Please don't try to extremely funny (the better term starts with s and ends with hitposting but automod doesn't like it) in this thread.
RE: Bretonian Armed Forces Feedback - Saronsen - 04-10-2023
You really shouldn't ally with organizations listed as Hostile as well as invite them into your group (1 2) when shooting someone.
Thanks for letting me know how to dictate further interactions however.
RE: Bretonian Armed Forces Feedback - Darius - 04-10-2023
Thank you for the feedback.
The individuals that were invited to the group were asked if they wish to assist to beforehand (inRP) and were given permission to stay in the vicinity of the encounter upon accepting. Furthermore, hostile/unwelcome by house laws does not mean hostile by server rules, and exceptions can be made at any time by the players IF sufficient roleplay is backing it up.
Regarding the KOI, there even is standing RP about possible assistance against LSF after the shenanigans around Curacao.
RE: Bretonian Armed Forces Feedback - Saronsen - 04-10-2023
(04-10-2023, 01:19 AM)Darius Wrote: The individuals that were invited to the group were asked if they wish to assist to beforehand (inRP) and were given permission to stay in the vicinity of the encounter upon accepting.Were batphoned over discord*
Thanks for your time.
RE: Bretonian Armed Forces Feedback - Darius - 04-10-2023
I am certain that if they care enough they will post on their behalf here and confirm that there was no ooRP interaction during this last encounter.
I will not, however, bother with responding much else to such assumptions, as they remain only that -- assumptions.
RE: Bretonian Armed Forces Feedback - Saronsen - 04-10-2023
Also not a good look when your response to gunboats is more cruisers.
RE: Bretonian Armed Forces Feedback - Darius - 04-10-2023
I can safely state that anyone who's taken part in the recent Coronado fights is fully and well aware of what my announcement entails. While the win conditions certainly change from fight to fight, what hasn't changed is the fact that most battles have turned from fun contests into just a snowballing game. I'm in touch already with both CR and some OC OF members to find a solution to this so all sides can equally enjoy playing.
As for the comparison to the New London raid, I'm afraid that what we got out was an entirely decent fighting force. 2 cruisers, 4 bombers and 2 VHFs, if my memory is correct, is as powerful as 4 GBs and 1 bomber are on an even playing level. There also lays the fact that comparing one single encounter to a dozen others is not too fair, as in the latter we can adapt to circumstances, but if you try to adapt to one single encounter you face the risk of losing. Not saying that losing is bad, but it is difficult to estimate how good the other side is when most of the people that arrive did so on ships that are new. (I personally only recognised Fort Rucker out of all the ships there as an older one)