Fwurg

[Veolian Commonwealth]

I understand that common sense should be used regarding the content of a post; this question is more in the direction of using an 'active' voice as to the actions of other players. I specifically ask this due to a post by Revenant, and although I would like a clear answer, I use this specific situation mostly as an example:

As the Veolian delegation diligently argues their way through the alternatives to the option that benefits them most, a silent but animate argument erupts at the seat of the Lifebringer Clans.

(by Revenant » Sun Jun 12, 2011 1:18 am)

In this example I feel like someone else is putting a twist to the words of my senator who did not do this to 'diligently argues their way through the alternatives to the option that benefits them most', but really had the intention of using this analysis as an objective argument.

Is there a policy as to what is acceptable/civilized with regards to RP'ing on the forum? As I would not really like a repeat of writing a long and thouroughly calculated post, and then have someone else just twist it away by putting a 'mood' on my character.

[The Lifebringer Clans]

My intention was to show the interpretation my delegation gave to the Veolian presentation, and in such a way describe the distrustful mood of my characters, rather than paint your characters as manipulative in any objective sense. Now that I read my post again, I agree it's not clear enough on this matter, and I apologize. I have edited my post to better reflect my intentions of a subjective evaluation of the Veolians.

I agree with you that objectively altering another's statements or actions is bad form and should be avoided, especially in a political roleplay.

Edit: Some additional observations:

1. My previous statement makes it sound as if it's possible to change/alter/twist another's actions or intentions in roleplay, but that it should be avoided. I'm used to, and would prefer roleplaying with the rule or convention that it is simply not possible to alter another's actions or intentions this way. If there is any ambiguity in a statement, it should be construed as subjective to the side that posted them, instead of as a statement about objective reality. In this case, my post should be construed as a miscommunication instead of an attempt to change things about your actions/intentions. This avoids hurt feelings.

2. The opening sentence of my post, while perhaps laden with unnecessary overtones of cynicism, was factually correct. The Veolians present an admirable amount of statistics, making 'diligent' an apt characterization. Second, their selected alternative is the one that roughly doubles their trade capacity at no cost, making it the most beneficial to themselves.

3. I think I finally found the problem with the metrics the Veolians use for their statistics: they consider all possible routes, instead of the ones that are actually used. It's quite possible these statistics would fall in their favor as well (just like the population metric the Kiitik suggested. Gah, there's 11 billion Veolians?! ), so I think the Kiitik delegation will stick to backroom deals on this one.

[Veolian Commonwealth]

As I said: I used I mostly as an example; but thanks for changing the wording. I still think that the admin should post a policy though, it would help new clarify things.

And not only are there 11 billion Veolians, they are actively trying to grow.

[Mercury]

I am glad you two managed to resolve the specific issue at hand together. I do not believe any harm was intended or done, so I'll not get into the matter, but rather focus on the general question.

You are always in control of your own character. That means you decide on your characters details, actions and intentions - other players cannot control your character. That being said, you cannot control how others interpret your actions nor how they see your character. If you do something with the best of intentions, they may still interpret your intentions differently.

Simple example: Senator Lonco describes shaking the hand of Chancellor Acehtoo to congratulate her with her election. However, Chancellor Acehtoo is a Vratix, and does not have hands, but rather a tarsus, which has dangerously sharp hooks.

Chancellor Acehtoo cannot change Lonco's action and say he hesitates or does not shake the Chancellors hands. However, there are several ways to resolve this:

Chancellor Acehtoo may post that as a Vratix, she has dangerously sharp hooks on her tarsus - which are the hands of the Vratix, but that as a chancellor, she has had these blunted because she knew after the election victory, she would be required to shake hands. That way, the action does not fail, the player of Senator Lonco now knows about this detail and no harm was done. It is a convenient IC solution, that provides additional insights into Chancellor Acehtoo's character.

Alternatively, the player could have Chancellor Acehtoo quickly withdraw her hands before the shake takes place, warning the Senator IC by letting Chancellor tell him about her claws. This is also an IC solution - it actually rewinds time a little, but Chancellor Acehtoo does not alter Senator Lonco's actions - she merely lets him know about her reaction. Senator Lonco in turn can act on Chancellor Acehtoo pulling back her hands.

Finally, Chancellor Acehtoo could contact the player of Senator Lonco and warn them about the matter - Senator Lonco can then edit his post, describing that as a Skulldaran, he has leathery skin which will not be harmed by claws easily.

Usually these things can be resolved, either by a bit of creative information insertion, a minor time rewind to allow a character to act in the middle of a previous post, or even contacting the other player OOC and work together to find a solution - you are free to edit your post.

Does that clarify things?