Quote:1 : a party or group (as within a government) that is often contentious or self-seeking : clique
2 : party spirit especially when marked by dissension
Now, you claim this doesn't denote organization or leadership. You're right. Reading it plainly like that doesn't imply leadership. But (yes, there is a but as language isn't as simple as mathematics) you clearly don't understand the definition of the word party. It isn't just a good time, you know.
Party definition from Webster:
Quote:1 : a person or group taking one side of a question, dispute, or contest
2 : a group of persons organized for the purpose of directing the policies of a government
3 : a person or group participating in an action or affair <a mountain-climbing party> <a party to the transaction>
4 : a particular individual : person <an old party approaching 80>
5 : a detail of soldiers
6 : a social gathering; also : the entertainment provided for it
The first two definitions pertain the most when it comes to the word faction. So tell me, do you see the implication of organization and structure (without leadership, those two concepts cannot exist)?
One final definition for you, Context from Webster:
Quote:1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2 : the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs : environment, setting <the historical context of the war>
As you can see, calling a Freelancer part of the Freelancer faction is not only an oxymoron, but contextually false in Discovery. Freelancers are specifically not part of any faction hence the term freelancer. This also applies to any of the non-factional IDs. In the context of Discovery, a group like the Rogues are a faction. Your average generic pirate trying to make a buck isn't part of some mystical generic pirate faction. It's conceptually and contextually false.
That concludes this English lesson. Back on topic.
Strom, you seem to have this seething hatred for independents in this game. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less why. But a lot of people have independent characters. A lot of people in official factions also have independent characters. You constantly decrying independents as the root of all evil makes you look like a bloody idiot. You would do anything to curb them, to make them weaker, to give official factions vast powers over them.
The fact of the matter is this: it isn't the independent's fault that they don't want to join official factions. It's as simple as that. You cannot blame anyone but official factions themselves. From restrictions, to absurd joining processes, to absurd applications (what is this, a job?). When I first joined this game I applied to join the LSF. Had a write up and everything, made the proper post of the forum and guess what? I never got a reply. Nothing except an acknowledgement that they received the application, but no answer. Most likely, it was lost in the system. They made a mistake, most likely, and I accepted it and moved on. I didn't call for their destruction because they made a mistake, did I (lets see if you understand the context)?
Official factions aren't infallible. There is no evidence to suggest that giving more power to them, potentially metagaming powers in terms of dealing with OOC or rule-breaking behaviour, (as all independents seem to have, according to your twisted view of reality) will result in impartiality. Players will always have bias. Always. It's a natural human emotion. I realize many admins have characters, but I'm fairly sure they place their adminship ahead of their character and faction. Something that regular Joe in official faction XYZ will not, ever do, because there is nothing for them except their faction and character. Do you understand the reason now why police officers deal with the law, and vigilantism is as much a crime as assault or murder? Lynch mobs became out of fashion centuries ago.
Just to re-iterate for you: stop calling all independents as rule breaking idiots. It only makes you look like one.
