=CR= Crayter Republic Feedback

[Thyrzul]

Yes, at time they are used to vent the anger. In which form, and how correct and how poltically correct and how nice the wording is depends much on what happened. The leaked passages are rather harmless in nature, to be honest. Real rants look a lot different. (by the way, the capital writing is not "yelling", it is just a way of making an announcement that sticks out).

I can only reiterate: That's what faction only channels are for: to give a room to these negative emotions that is not public, in order to cope with the negative effects of events, in order to get rid of the energy. That's something positive and that's why that private space needs to be protected.

The leaked passages are, as you yourself pointed out as well, announcements made by the faction leader. If they are to be discarded as rant, it undermines the authority of the faction leader, if they are considered as is, they lead to interaction denial, it is detrimental towards other players. Either way it's harmful.

Let's just agree we use our faction channels differently. Mine is not for ragefests.

This is an avenue that has been proposed hundreds and executed dozens of times in the last 5 years by all factions that are routinely busted in pvp. It's the last way to fight back for those who are pounded by overwhelming opposition: by starving out the attackers until they move on to some other target. Read on, though: I am not saying it was called for in this instance (I was not even there), so I cannot judge it.

Interestingly I cannot recall ever advocating the excercise of such policies, perhaps Council is just not part of "all factions that are routinely busted in pvp". Perhaps we are full of aces, I just didn't notice yet. What I'm saying is that I am not keen to accept any excuse to justify such emotional outburst and such directive for the faction no matter how much we were rekt in-game.

It's interesting to see how you defend Shaggy's words though, after all those debates between us where you preferred any interaction no matter the quality, while I argued that quality shall not be forgotten no matter how much less activity we have today compared to previous years. Did we happen to switch sides?

Plus: announcements made (like in the quote) do not have to reflect real future policies. They sometimes just are means of frustration coping: you act, you have a plan to remedy a situation (no matter how bad the plan is) => you feel better as a group => you move on. Basic psychology.

It's an announcement from the actual faction leader. As I said if it's not meant to be taken seriously, then in the future who tells which order should and which shouldn't be followed? It just undermines the credibility, the authority of the leader. There are a lot of ways to vent one's anger without causing such.

As if leaking of channel interna had anything to do with demands for staff transparency. You compare apples and pears.

Faction channels with a clear "no c&p policy" would in rl be confidential backdoor political/economic disputes - guess what: Those are meant to be confidential. Leaking from such secret meetings is considered criminal or is at least heavily frowned on. Companies fire you for it and sue you. In reality, once a decision has been reached in back room talk, a real well-thought through statement with correct wording can be published (and likely will not because the anger has vanished the next day, and no one cares any more, see earlier paragraph).

Staff decisions - in contrast - can be compared to the parliamentary / justice system. Of course this one has to work transparently. It makes laws, interprets and enforces them. It is a session in parliament, compared to a invite-only circle gathering in a back room.

I compare transparency and transparency. There is nothing special about it. Both faction-level stuff and staff-level stuff has an effect on their surroundings, the latter a bit wider and more than the former, but still.

I also find your corporate parallel a bit forced, it's not like top secret faction plans or information were leaked or something, against which I could see such a policy justified, just an outburst of the leader, the attitude and temper of whom may as well concern those the faction interacts with. Should there been a leak of, for example, the rename password, which is indeed confidental information, I could agree with you, but not in this case.

P.S: Getting a +1 from Guap should also be something to think about.

Care to elaborate? You won't discredit my points simply because someone else agreed with them too, will you?

---