Orbital Spa and Cruise Information

[jammi]

And @ Jammi, that is information and the train of thought of Kim. Not what Adndrew Bellingham is doing. So maybe you might want to re-read.

*Sigh*

That was your chosen representative of your corporation. I know it isn't the CEO. You made that extremely clear. None of us thought it was the CEO. If your chosen representative acts poorly, it reflects on your entire group, however. That is why you carefully pick your representatives.

You don't pay representatives for their personal opinions. You pay them to do their job, which is to announce the company-line. Like I said, if I'd employed a rep who did that, I'd fire them.

---

News article library, feedback and content requests.

[Skullz]

I believe you missed Article 1, Clause 3 of this treaty, Ms. Allen, that states all decisions regarding the future of the governance of these systems be decided by the quartet of this treaty through amendments to this treaty. If you wish to abolish this treaty, you are going to need two other supporters to agree to do so as well. Bretonia certainly has no interest in abolishing this treaty, which serves its purpose well.

And,

And because something is old, doesn't mean that it is obsolete.

Are answer to Kim in the value of that she is the one making the decision nor respecting that she has said that it is her employer making a review of it so that it can be enforced upon, acted on in the future for OS&C, be that enforcement of say counterfeit software, or moving for a change in the treaty.

And,

Miss Allen has hit the nail on the head in saying that this treaty is old, and may need either a reaffirmation, or amendments to reflect the ever changing situation within Sirius. Thus my suggestion is not to review the treaty as-is, but hash out a new set of principles based on the previous treaty.

By Aeternus Doleo as his IMG character conferring with Kim's own opinions. So by your statement just made Jammi, his character shouldn't say that as it is an opinion. Same as,

I am, as well as others in the Bretonian Government, in favour of renewing the treaty. However, the important principles of it must remain consistent.

posted by Alvin Katz.

So if you wish one not to voice an opinion, both of those statements should not have been said as they are in themselves opinions. So there are 3 persons that if they repersented you, you would fire them.

And about how persons act I know a few who always act abrasive and rudely. I myself have had it done to my characters before. So in reallity, no one cares. Most people do it in the community here all the time. So I see no reason to respect your comment as such for reasons given.

---

[jammi]

Well, now I'm awake again...

And,
Are answer to Kim in the value of that she is the one making the decision nor respecting that she has said that it is her employer making a review of it so that it can be enforced upon, acted on in the future for OS&C, be that enforcement of say counterfeit software, or moving for a change in the treaty.

They're replying to an official spokes(wo)man of your organisation. That is how you address an official spokesman, because, y'know... They represent the entire organisation they're speaking for. It doesn't matter if she is or is not the one making the decision, she's speaking on behalf of the person who is. That's what counts. That's how formal communications work.

And,
By Aeternus Doleo as his IMG character conferring with Kim's own opinions. So by your statement just made Jammi, his character shouldn't say that as it is an opinion. Same as,
posted by Alvin Katz.

Their opinions closely mirrored that of their organisations, and weren't out of place: they were announcing their organisation's stance. Furthermore, each of their characters was an important authority figure within their respective faction - your character was... a secretary? In any case, not a senior member. The opinions your character posted were just a stream of insults. Yes, you've edited it out now, but I still can't believe you did that in the first place.

So if you wish one not to voice an opinion, both of those statements should not have been said as they are in themselves opinions. So there are 3 persons that if they repersented you, you would fire them.

You've completely misinterpreted me. Opinions are fine so long as they are conducted in a professional manner. Spewing out a tide of insults, verbally attacking delegates and making a hash of the diplomatic process isn't. So far, I haven't seen any of the others manage that.

And about how persons act I know a few who always act abrasive and rudely. I myself have had it done to my characters before. So in reallity, no one cares. Most people do it in the community here all the time. So I see no reason to respect your comment as such for reasons given.

I know you have a major chip on your shoulder about Dab. It's so deep I'm surprised your arm hasn't fallen off, to be honest. Just try to ignore the forum account and respond to the character, yeah? That's what I do. It works well. Also, if you're going to lead your faction by the principle of, "well, others can get away with it too, so we'll do it as well", I can't see you lasting very long. Let alone getting official.

---

News article library, feedback and content requests.

[Snak5]

Not going to quote jammi as I agree to each bit of it.

I will just add, that you should not mix your feelings, as a person, and character's opinions, as what role you play, in any way.
I saw your anger and distaste in regular discussions and I see it breaking out in roleplay communications.

I might be wrong on this, but if I'm right, take attention into it.

Best of luck.

EDIT: Oh. After Daedric's post - I don't think someone should step down as leader. All of us slip time from time. But error and trial makes us better and that is what matters.

---

User was banned for: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=128275
Time left: (Permanent)

[Daedric]

I think you all need to understand that this is role play. In the real world, things are not always done professionally. Sometimes people are rude, inflammatory and abrasive to one another.

I'm going to say I think both Dab and Alvin's characters were being very abrasive and sarcastic to Skullz's character. Skullz's character made it very clear that they were only reviewing the treaty, but that the current mindset was to break with it. I'm inclined to think that the review is a direct response to that mind set, you know:

CEO: That treaty is piss. We're breaking it.
OSC Execs: Sir, perhaps we should review it first?
CEO: Why this is our damn system!
OSC Execs: ...because they have guns and we don't?
CEO: Touche. Let them know we're reviewing the treaty.

If everyone made the correct decisions and did what was right - this would be a very boring environment. It is role play, it isn't good nor bad. Saying he should step down as OSC leader because he doesn't know what he is doing only shows you've little understanding of how to role play.

I'll agree, in part, with Arthur. Try not to let your emotions as a player seep into your character's emotions. It is difficult at times especially in dealing with people you do not like, but it helps in the long run.

---

Helpful Discovery Guides

Get Help Here! | Player Base Guide | Mining Guide | Trading Guide

Reputation Guide | Zoner Rep Guide

OSI Information | Join OSI! | Nichols Trade Center
OSI Bounty Board | OSI Feedback

[Skullz]

I don't have a chip with Dab. He does with me. Another person whom has had a chip with me is Wolfs Ghost. You may or may not know why that is, but both times I have not let it effect me. Also it seems that Alvin has a chip with me. No offence to any of them. I am just as willing to defend all 3 just as much as I am in willing to roleplay with them. Even where threats were made by one. I'm not here to argue, I am here to play a game. I have tried to explain to people why I did what I did origionally. I am thankfull that I am not the only person whom thinks that both of their responses, Dab and Alvin's, were sarcastic and abrasive. I have also come from a background where this so called amannerisms are not accepted. I'm sorry but it happens. I've seen one employee run out of a meeting when someone was being sarcastic and abrasive to them. I have also seen meetings where people lose their tempers. So the arguement for saying repersentation between two companies must me sweet as sugar is deluded of reality of what really happens. I've been in a meeting where half way through we all wanted to punch each others guts out and were being very rude about it. Afterwards, I will tell you this now, all thsoe that took part in the meeting felt that they had their voices heard and was proud that the meeting went the way it did.

Why I know these things is because I have been a committie member to a company. So I know how internal and external communications are like, how they come about, and seen much more worse things done and said then what roleplay I saw aimed at Kim and then again from how I orginially posted my reply to Alvin and Dab. I know that Dab is in schooling years so won't have a true idea of it, though I tried to explain it to the best of my ability out of roleplay and he made it clear that he is not happy with it. Same for Alvin. I have tried to explain it to them both, in regards to real diplomacy, that I have seen it here on the forums before, i've had it done to me in the past with one of my characters being called a whining baby. And also in respect of what the intentions are as written by myself and by those of whom who are in that type of position in real life or have been. As they would agree to me in my opinions that I have voiced already.

I am only going by what I have seen and how I was taught to handle situations like that. If you view it as any other way then sorry but you need to learn a few things, likely to be learn't with age. (Yes it is blunt, but it is true.)

---

[Snak5]

I am only going by what I have seen and how I was taught to handle situations like that. If you view it as any other way then sorry but you need to learn a few things, likely to be learn't with age. (Yes it is blunt, but it is true.)

That is arrogance right there. Very destructic character trait. Which did bursted in your roleplay too.
Make conclusion yourself, before it is too late.

Having different views = not knowing.
It is equal having different views. Opinions are different and not always because of knowledge, but because of point of view.

It is your faction, your roleplay, your business, but keep the line between roleplay and real life, please, for the sake of all involved participants.

---

User was banned for: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=128275
Time left: (Permanent)

[Skullz]

Let me explain how I came to come to the conclusion of making the post that I did.

I saw Alvins post. I thought about it. My first instinct was that it was sarcastic. I then left it for a day. 24 hours later I go in to the thread, press reply, when it loads the reply screen I see Dab has made a post in the same tone and character.

That is to say that (In my view) both were sarcastic and Dabs was talking down to me as if Kim was a 6 year old, and that both were taking it the wrong way of how my post was written in it's intent. Because of the roleplay I saw, which was of rudeness, talking down and completely thinking that the intent of the post is something different, and taking in account that they have not understood the meaning of 'review' I then made a post equal to their actions that they made.

In a nut shell: (All roleplay wise)
1- I post, say a view in hopes of being given any further information that can help, and show my intent is to only review it so that I and others understand its meaning. (the Treaty)
2- I get one person in response talking down me.
3- I get another doing the same.
4- I see that both are being sarcasticly rude in their own manner.
5- I see that they are un-responsive to understanding its intent.
6- That they are not willing to speak towards Kim in a good manner.
7- That they are not willing to understand the meanings that are made clear to them.
8- I think of how I can approach them.
9- I decide that because they have not read it properly, understand it properly, see the intent as it is shown to them, and that they are rude, talking down to me as if they are better than me and being sarcastic in their tones, that I will reply to them pointing out they they have not taken it the correct away and untill they do that they should not act like children, nor should make something out of it that does not exist.
10- made my post as you all can see as I have pasted it in to a post in this thread.

If you feel that I went the wrong way about it, why don't you please show me how I should have, or how I should have taken their posts? No one has done this with myself, only complained that they think it was wrong. All I have tried to do so far is explain it over and over again, yet I still feel that those involved and have complained still are not happy with it. This is the, er, forgotton how many times now, that I have tried to explain the logic behind it. Untill those that think it was wrong in what I did explain how it was wrong and provide full explainations, as I continue to give, and provide how they think it should have been handled.

Untill then stop saying that you think it is wrong.

Furthermore, Arthur by going by what you know is not arrogance. If someone wishes to explain how they think I should have done, I will be open to them, and if I see it being of use I will use that technique. You are assuming that I am not open to learning a new techniques where as I am. That does not constitute arrogance. Maybe you need to look the word up.

The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others; lordliness; haughtiness; self-assumption; presumption. Closely related to the act of arrogating.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/arrogance

---

[Snak5]

Psychology? My type of discussion topic.

I am only going by what I have seen and how I was taught to handle situations like that. If you view it as any other way then sorry but you need to learn a few things, likely to be learn't with age. (Yes it is blunt, but it is true.)

This right here, is an example of assumption, which implies the author of statement is more experienced than others and that they should become like him with age and experience.
Saying that in context where you imply Dab and Alvin made something bad, shows you are criticising them, but in a way, where you put yourself above them. You don't say, that they made a mistake. You imply, that they are inferior to you, as you have more experience, and that is why they behaved, from you point of view, in the bad way.

Arrogance by wikipedia's definition is dry stuff. In practical terms, it is an act, in which person puts himself above others, from where other actions such as ignorance or hyprocrisy comes.

:yahoo:I could do this all day long. But this ain't the place for it.

I gave feedback, you keep on defending from it. Defence is a sign of guilt admission as well in certain context.

---

User was banned for: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=128275
Time left: (Permanent)

[jammi]

Bretonian operations inside of the NATO zone have worked in co-ordination with the Liberty Navy to secure the space in question on several occasions. In fact this region is exceptionally stable due to this treaty.

I am, as well as others in the Bretonian Government, in favour of renewing the treaty. However, the important principles of it must remain consistent.

I am sure my counterpart in the Liberty Navy will agree.

And because something is old, doesn't mean that it is obsolete. There is a reason that section of space is safe, stable, and quiet.

I believe you missed Article 1, Clause 3 of this treaty, Ms. Allen, that states all decisions regarding the future of the governance of these systems be decided by the quartet of this treaty through amendments to this treaty. If you wish to abolish this treaty, you are going to need two other supporters to agree to do so as well. Bretonia certainly has no interest in abolishing this treaty, which serves its purpose well.

I read them through again, just to check, and I honestly can't see any sarcastic or abrasive comments. They're both informative and formally written. Just because they're not agreeing with you, doesn't mean they're being sarcastic. They seem perfectly civilised to me, RPing as politicians and bureaucrats. By all means, go ahead and highlight the sarcastic bits. Now, contrast with this:

So stop acting like whining babies about something that was not said. Or are you blind!?

Now stop making up stupid things and calm the hell down you blind and complete utter idiots. As obviously you can't read this, "This is a notification that we are reviewing the treaty only." I seriously have no clue what drugs you two are taking, but it is very clear you are high.

Are you seeing the problem here? 1) That was a massive overreaction, and 2) your claims that they were acting childish appear to be slightly hypocritical.

Thinking of hypocritical, I've also seen the chatlogs where you've admitted Dab has never insulted or coerced you, shortly after you've called him some absolutely vile things. You're not going to convince me it's Dab who has the issue here.

So, how to improve? Certainly. Write back in civil, formal tones. Don't get flustered or angry. Be informative. Don't snap. Like I said, it's not a pissing contest to see who can be the snarkiest.

EDIT: Whoa, whoa. Arthur, if defending yourself is a sign of guilt admission, how do you protect your reputation when you haven't actually done anything wrong? :lol:

---

News article library, feedback and content requests.