We are excited and delighted about the start of our project and how it has gone so far. We stand for excitement, boldness, creativity, friendships, and leaving no stone of gameplay and roleplay potential unturned. Now we would like to kindly ask you - our friends in the Discovery Community, to share your wisdom, ideas, and opportunities on how to make The First Armada even more exciting!
Share your fantastic ideas, and see them manifest in action!
There are certainly many opportunities to improve.
First and foremost, calling the faction an armada doesn’t work for Liberty at all. Pulling straight from our universal friend known as Wikipedia.org, Armada is the Spanish and Portuguese word for naval fleet. So unless it's a Hispania-based faction, it really doesn't fit.
Next, the “admiral” has been dishonorably discharged from 46th, and while I’m sure you know absolutely everything about how that works, I’ll share for the rest of the class.
When an individual is dishonorably discharged from the service, all benefits afforded by their rank are lost, regardless of any past honorable service. They cannot rejoin the armed forces and are in many places barred from voting and from holding any public office. Additionally, a dishonorable discharge in some places is regarded as a felony conviction. The individual loses even more rights.
Also can't own any firearms, so that's a thing too.
Furthermore, ridiculous name aside, there is absolutely no way that the government would ever fund a branch of the military lead by an individual who has been DD'd.
You'd be better off just creating a new character.
Start by fixing these problems and you might have half a shot of being a respectable faction.
It is a long time in the future, we are glad to bring something new to the game. United States itself has 17.1% Hispanic or Latino origin people, I would imagine that the use of language would alter in this way as a reasonable alternative. But that aside, it is just a way for us to differentiate ourselves, turns out there has been a faction that at times has called itself the First Fleet without us realizing - and we have grown to love the new name, unanimously agreed on faction-wide. I am sure the meaning behind it will be associated with us eventually. Actions are more important than words anyways as they say - god knows we have had enough fleets
As to the dismissal - it obviously does not apply to the Navy as a whole and was done silently for oorp reasons and presented in RP without any process or evidence. There is no mechanic that could enforce it to all Navy. I could appeal and clean this in RP but honestly, it was just better to move on - the differences of character of the people behind this are such that a split without dwelling on it has been for the best. I wish them the best of luck, but I consider this matter behind us as far as The First Armada and this character are concerned. I am pretty sure 46th Feel the same way, and if someone else doesn't, it will be on staff to decide if this can be in any way enforced.
Thank you for taking your time in answering! As to being respectable - well, let's face it, we are here for fun, friendships and activity first and foremost. We will make mistakes, often times do before we think and instantly try out all "cool" ideas of our members, some of them might be misfires but it's important for us that Liberty has a faction where people can get excited, be creative without worrying too much about making mistakes (besides breaking server rules, which we will strive to avoid).
If that means not having respect of some part of the community but appealing to another - well that is all right, approaches how to play the game differ after all
Considering the real-life U.S. Navy uses primarily 'Fleets', 'Task Forces', and 'Strike Groups' more often than pretty much anything, I feel one of those three would probably fit better. To my knowledge, Liberty still has three entire fleets that haven't been expanded on (2nd, 4th, and 7th), four (6th) if you don't count anything that Mr. Mike did, and could have any number of Task Forces, Strike Groups, or however named divisions within the Navy that could be built on. Food for thought, though I'd personally be against naming anything with an American legacy an 'Armada', as that's really a European thing.
Continuing to use van Leer as a character is, of course, your decision, as the community standards permit, but considering both the rank he was stripped of and the one he holds now being considerably disproportionate, as well as 46th, an official faction, giving the discharge RP, it really throws a wrench into any consistency your character would have, not to mention pretty much voiding the RP of van Leer's actual departure from 46th as a whole.
I'd highly recommend using a new character, and if you really do have a firm interest in using van Leer, maybe make him an advisor for 1st's operations. It's still a stretch, but it would at least be more consistent character development than the discharge disappearing and him magically becoming an Admiral.
I've gone through a discharge myself, under honorable conditions, and seeing this kinda irks me in a spot I don't like to be reminded of.
Thank you for responding and look - I get it, it's been the norm to copy the WW2 to the current era US Navy.
I mean really - nothing says you have to copy IRL navy from so long ago. I understand that it has been the norm so far to heavily lean on IRL stereotypes and direct imports in Liberty - hell a lot of what we do have still is a direct import and tropes, but I don't think Disco factions have to confine themselves to the strict IRL Army and Navy direct imports.
As to the dismissal - I am not sure how yours went, but for me it's simple, I don't consider it as valid for entire Navy. Van Leer's character was dismissed from one Fleet and transferred to another. There was no process or discussion in or oorp, it was an out-of-the-blue oorp kick from people I trusted with no accusation, evidence, or discussion prior to said kick in or out of roleplay. And I don't want to revisit this with the people that were behind this because of the surprising and deep differences in character.
What you see here is the entire extent of the in and oorp process, the only thing that was ever brought up or said prior to the dismissal and kick from the faction in or oorp.
In short, being dismissed from Navy as a whole is not part of the character lore as it made no sense in the first place - this is what I mean, and if some people want to disagree and think an OF can arbitrarily force out a character out of an ID with zero discussion or evidence only because of an oorp preference they can always try enforcing it with staff. For me, however, it is a done thing of the past.
I've already thrown in some of my thoughts once but i think i should do it again. The problem in how you interpret the character's departure from the previous faction makes absolutely zero sense as said faction clearly stated how said character departed. Am i to believe that for whatever reason wheter legit or not you, when encountered with a situation that doesn't fit into your world you simply ignore it and continue on just because reasons? Are we to believe that you refuse to bear any consequences in the RP enviroment that is not ideal to you? Because from the looks of it that is the case, and it doesn't really look good on this new faction's resume, Wheter you "consider it valid" for the entire Navy or not in this case will loose its meaning because the core of the message you send with this is that you refuse to acknowledge any bad consequences. And as the leader of this faction, do we correctly assume that this is/will be the modus operandi of this faction as well?
In English, as well as in some other non-Romance languages (including my native) "armada" has a different connotation. Whereas "fleet" is just a neutral term referring to a large unit of ships with a more or less permanent formation that together constitutes a unit in military command. "Armada" sounds more like a word used in fiction or writing style to refer to a very large, even excessive number of vessels flocked together. Usually, the word is used to underscore the sheer number of ships, rather than their organisation into a unit or the role in military command. Same goes for the word "flotilla". Unless it is some joke-reference to the favoured Liberty tactics of overwhelming capspam, then "armada" does not fit the House stylistically, IMHO
(07-01-2022, 11:53 AM)Morosz Wrote: I've already thrown in some of my thoughts once but i think i should do it again. The problem in how you interpret the character's departure from the previous faction makes absolutely zero sense as said faction clearly stated how said character departed. Am i to believe that for whatever reason wheter legit or not you, when encountered with a situation that doesn't fit into your world you simply ignore it and continue on just because reasons? Are we to believe that you refuse to bear any consequences in the RP enviroment that is not ideal to you? Because from the looks of it that is the case, and it doesn't really look good on this new faction's resume, Wheter you "consider it valid" for the entire Navy or not in this case will loose its meaning because the core of the message you send with this is that you refuse to acknowledge any bad consequences. And as the leader of this faction, do we correctly assume that this is/will be the modus operandi of this faction as well?
In instances when an oorp preference leads to an attempt to force the character out of the ID without any discussion in or OORP, in RP evidence, discussion etc.? Frankly, yes, it will be ignored. Is that somehow surprising?
EDIT: I might add that the attempt was most likely unintended but nevertheless unfortunate - this is just how it is done sadly, oorp preference expressed as in-roleplay one, It works with small things like demoting by a rank etc. But just doesn't in instances like these. That was the whole issue really - no discussion at all, just out of the blue oorp decision expressed in-Rp with no mentionable in-rp actions that can be based on in-rp evidence.
It's funny how you continue to say that you were discharged for ooRP reasons even though a perfectly inRP post was made listing the specific reasons for your character's dishonorable discharge.
I second Morosz' statement that you're just choosing to ignore totally valid roleplay just because it doesn't fit your preferred outcome.
(07-01-2022, 01:54 PM)Tenshi Wrote: It's funny how you continue to say that you were discharged for ooRP reasons even though a perfectly inRP post was made listing the specific reasons for your character's dishonorable discharge.
I second Morosz' statement that you're just choosing to ignore totally valid roleplay just because it doesn't fit your preferred outcome.
Those are based on oorp reasons and you know it. Again, I could have challenged that in RP, but frankly, it's best we move on due to character differences. Feel free to bring up to staff the request of FR5 or removal of the character from the ID. If they are sufficient and valid in RP reasons then you have sufficient in RP valid evidence for the mentioned. If you do not, this oorp driven decision will not be part of the character's lore.
![[Image: 8b5dd558f134186a25a5f8523673787e.png]](https://i.gyazo.com/8b5dd558f134186a25a5f8523673787e.png)
![[Image: dqsrBM1.png]](https://i.imgur.com/dqsrBM1.png)
![[Image: mHWFxPI.png]](https://i.imgur.com/mHWFxPI.png){kind=small}
![[Image: UuJsIzJ.png]](http://i.imgur.com/UuJsIzJ.png)
![[Image: JBFuYKi.png]](https://i.imgur.com/JBFuYKi.png)
![[Image: PdU2YZD.png]](https://i.imgur.com/PdU2YZD.png)
![[Image: 330px-Flag-liberty.png]](https://discoverygc.com/wiki/images/thumb/f/fe/Flag-liberty.png/330px-Flag-liberty.png)
![[Image: zHA8qW0.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/zHA8qW0.gif)