OOC For IC

Some groups have standardized systems but remember that unlike for example the Order of Hermes who other than House Ex Misc have one Paradigm and then personal falvor to that, and the Cultists who are connected though the idea of working magick though changing their states of mind, the unifying principle of the Etherites is fringe science. But the thing is fringe science can be homeopathy, raising the dead though electicity, strange medicine, Star Trek like tech, steam based tech and so on.

You're all over the shop here, Great One. Homeopathy is clear fringe science, 'scientific necromancy' may be simply bleeding-edge medical science [RL, about six months ago they managed to reverse necrosis in dead organs to allow them to be used in transplants], 'strange medicine' is simply stuff which is not familiar to you, personally [so subjective and basically meaningless] and 'steam based tech' is not strictly science, but engineering.

Let's talk about this last one for a moment. Steam engines were phased out after WW2 not because they were functionally obsolete [as in, inferior] but because companies simply said they were. They stopped developing them in the 1920s, which meant by the 60s they were inferior to the modern diesel and electrics on offer [any 40-year old design usually is; you pit a 2020 Tesla car vs 1980 Ford and the Tesla will win simply because it's newer].

This leads to the conclusion; if steam tech was continued to be developed it's quite possible we may have continued to use them into the current age. This was semi-proven when in the 1980s a South African team designed a fully new steam train utilising all the modern tech we had since the 20s regarding metals, boilers etc and it promised performance levels equal to the current diesels.

With engineering/tech, there is never simply 'one road to take'. This was illustrated IC by Nick and Fran talking about space launches, which Nick explaining about the 'path not taken' by using artillery-launches akin to the ones described by HG Wells and the suspicions she had to why we ended up using rockets instead. [which is true in RL, at least on the tech-side].

What's clear is that Etherites main beef with the Union is their claims of monopoly status over Science, their policies towards other factions, and/or the world in general. This is why in the Iteration X book the Etherites were described as...

'...They'd rather spout pseudoseience than actually give people real tools to get through life with...' but then goes onto say '...Some of them are about two class-hours from being Iteration Xers or some other kind of Technocrat, poking around in modern science with just a few pieces out on the fringe.' Then lastly; '...My next higher-up at Technotica brags about his full collection of Paradigma that goes back over 20 years, so it's clear not all of us think they're a living abomination to Science...'

They've covered both angles - one end, our old-school homopathy doctor and their unique made-up theories which I suspect they write in green ink, to say Nick who's perhaps in that two-class hours to becoming a minted Void Marine or an Iterator Enforcer. The last bit suggests that there is a bit of an appreciation - however backhanded - that the Etherties do 'stumble' onto useful ideas/inventions which are worth stealing now and then.

It is a little hard for a old school homeopathy doctor to maintain a hyper science Umbra ship engine.

It would also be a bit hard for the Chief to craft an enchanted blade, make alchemical elixirs or use numerology to predict an enemy's future plans [or I assume it would be]. The answer to 'why' is obvious; he was not trained to.

Our budding homeopathy doctor wouldn't be sent to an Ethership construction site or one of the Robotics labs for their education, would they? No, chances are they'd end up being taught by someone who shared their Scientific interests - a renowned medical Scientist or perhaps a permanent medical cabal operating as a kind of Etherite 'hospital' somewhere - the Revised book mentions that most of the major factions have a few 'teaching cabals' about.

Again, I'm not suggesting the Etherites are completely homogenous - far from it - but they would have certain more or less formal disciplines or schools of engineering with their own standards, and most Etherites of Adept rank or higher would likely be at least familiar with most, even if they might dismiss them as "incorrect interpretations of the readings" or something, and stick to the models they can work with.

That's what I'm thinking. That most - esp in the 2E era we are in - Etherites have either passed through one of the main faction's 'teaching cabals' [like Nick did at the Academy, or Baynes is trying to form in Detroit with cybernetics] or have been taught one-to-one by someone who had been. And that some 'faction standards' have grown up in the century since - common design types and so on [helped through journals, symposia etc]. And that there *are* some Etherites waay 'out there'; the Mad Scientists.

What is says in the Tradition books is that most Etherites have methods and theories that seldom go past their own school or even their own lineage. A orgonite user would not learn how to use a steam engine for example, and there is allot of arguments because while all Etherites see what they do as Science with a big S they do not always see what others do as Science. Yes setting wise in M20 most of the toher styles have been ignored in favor of making Etherites more Steampunk so in the new M20 setting they are more uniform but in Second Edition they are very diverse. A homeopathy user for example would demand that a Tass battery be diluted, a Steam engineer would want to boil it into seam and so on.

#1: Chances are our steam-working Etherite would like their Tass in a 'burnable' lump form, like charcoal or coal.
#2: It wouldn't take much modification for the device to burn standard 'Fleet oil' instead.
#3: The homeopathic doctor's needs I suspect can be better met by a Verbena stream-glade or something they can grind up.

It makes no sense that the Etherites have no standardization - more likely, they have something to the tune of half a dozen (more or less compatible) sets of standards that they teach; for example, an internal combustion principle pumping Etheric oil (liquid Tass, not to be confused with the mundane stuff) into a combustion chamber for generating propulsion or electricity, solid state batteries (crystalline Tass in a standardized casing), and so on. After all, if there were no standardization, the various Etherships would be three and a half nightmares trying to refuel - but they have standardized fuel tanks and systems allowing other Etherites to perform maintenance without too much of a fuss.

For extra fun, it might be possible to 'de-case' the Tass battery, leaving the crystalline core which Hermetics prefer...

If there's a de facto* standard for say 'Tass batteries', this means it's a standard part which Etherite designers can plan for. A weapons designer, for example can produce laser rifles which have a slot for said batteries [like ammo ones in RL], safe in the knowledge that they're somewhat easy to come across out in the world. It's why in IC Nick specified .45 for her desired pistol and looked up the calibre of Fran's rifle *before* she bought it - she didn't want either of them be lumbered with a strange/expensive/rare calibre.

Aslo, Etherships are made at specialised labs, not a rando's shed [Think, that shuttle alone is perhaps a 30-dot wonder when you add up all the parts] - it's just too expensive in Primium, Tass and labour for a single person to handle. This suggests that the models are 'semi-standardised' on creation [make a good design and stick with it], and even as they diverge as they are modified/repaired over decades they try to keep the essentials inter-operable with the other ships of it's class.

* - An excellent example of this is the humble USB. It's become a near-standard in electricals, and nobody ever ordered it to happen. It just happened because the USB is a good design and it's difficult to justify using something different [at the moment, at least]. Unless you're Apple, which 'more £££' is the clear winner.

I do not have the time to go though all of that wall of text. I am just going to lave it with this. The Sons of Ether IS about FRINGE science. Just more avanced than the sleepers got science are what the Union do, the Etherites are about fringe science such as for example homeopathy or stitching together a corpse and using electricity to bring it back to life. But yes some of them are closer to aknowledged science than others.

The Chief can enchant a blade and he know a bit of alchemy and numerology it is all part of the Corpus that he is taught about but those who specialize in a field will do it better.

But yes there are Etherite schools and they would have similar views but that do not mean that the entire Sons of Ether Traditions have standardized systems and tools they work with.

Sorry, but I'm with Nick here - fringe science, or Science!, if you prefer, absolutely, but Etherites will be bound to have a number of distinct schools of thought, different core principles that have formed larger factions among the Etherites. It's not even about whether or not they acknowledge science, just that there's bound to be a number of common Paradigms among the Etherites, each with their own sets of standards and common toolkits - whether it be the orgonite makers, the steampunk engineers, Hastings' Ethernauts, cyberneticists, or other distinct disciplines that will have developed their own bodies of work proving how they function, shared throughout the Society.

Yes, there'll be plenty of room for the one-off nutjobs, too, but the Society itself couldn't function if they as a whole were as diverse as Orphans.

I am nto saying there are not schools of Etherites who have similar Paradigms and ways of working, in fact I have repetadly said that they do have just that. What I am saying is that there is not ONE STANDARD for Tass among the Etherites, or for equipment in general as the Tradition is to diverse for that. Yes there are schools where the sudents learn the same or similar ideas, methods and Paradigms but a few dozen different schools and factions, along with allot of lone nutty professors all sorted into a handful of loosely allied factions is not a good enviroment for standardisation.

Oh, yeah, no, we weren't arguing there is one standard - we're arguing there are several standards, each according to the broader disciplines, such as cased solid-state batteries, Ether-oil, hypercharged coal for steam engines, the Ethership fuel tanks, and so on and so forth.

Not a single standard, but several standards adapted for fueling the associated machinery or devices. Probably a lot of overlap between the different disciplines, as well as some really exclusive, single-purpose variants for a single Paradigm group, too.

Well those who have gone to the same schools would have similar Paradigms so there might be a standard there. However if we look at for example Umbra ships, there is a big difference between a Star Trek like space ship, a frigate who sails the Ether streams and a steam powerd spirit train, there might be some similarities but they are not likely to have the same engines. But yes I am sure there are some standards as the Sons of Ether have several schools.

Yeah, I'd say there's likely two or three "standard" power cell design variants used by the various electrics-oriented major groups, maybe one "standard" liquid Tass quality in terms of drams-by-volume for several others, and magnitudes more of one-off designs for specific outputs outside of those. But these would be design specs, not finished product that you'd be able to order from the Ether-Mart Catalogue or something; you'd pretty much need a foot in the door with someone from that particular group of Etherites, and hope he doesn't overcharge you much for consistent quality Tass.

After all, refining such standards would require some work on the Etherites' part, too, and in a lot of cases, that's simply not convenient with the more moody nature of Quintessence... More likely, you'd be able to get the specs for the standards and be expected to purify and charge up the Tass yourself.

Think there would be a kind of 'uranium slug' Tass-form for those few atompunk Etherites too, but Colin and I are generally on the same page here. It's why I compared it to RL plug designs – in that the majority of the world shares a few types, a minority clings on to their own 'special designs' for particular arguments [the British plug is the safest, for example] and there's a load of rare types for niche uses.

The other thing which would encourage semi-standardisation is the 'Ether-Mart Catalogue'. Or the 'Big Book of Blueprints'. Or similar. New Node tapped? Well, you either buy-in the machine to do it [which pumps out the oil additive, or has a battery charging station etc] or you build one using the pre-made design. A lot of Etherites will be like Nick; better at crafting than inventing [esp when outside their speciality].

But as said, yes the contents of the oil/battery/rock/etc is different to the form – which is why I floated the idea that Tass which was way off the norm would be marked as such [oil dyed blue, batteries with special markings etc]. Plus, I suspect 'Tass testers' are a very common Trinket in the Traditions, to allow people to well, test the Tass they have.

Lastly, generally speaking the one-off nutjobs don't 'reproduce'. They don't often take assistants to teach, rarely publish anything noteworthy and almost never have a 'teaching position' at a Lab. We should also bear in mind that the Etherites do have 'limits' – as in while they are open-minded, they do believe in science, and thus will reject anything clearly pseudoscientific, mystical and/or religious in nature. So it's quite possible our homeopath may only be technically still a member of the Society, or perhaps simply right in the 'crank corner', completely discredited and no Student desires to study under them lest it ruins them too [canon example; 'Dr Comet'. And it wasn't even his personal fault.]

OOC: Fran did not have a dirty debating style, yes eventually she got angry and raised her voice but she debated fairly and gave Nicole every chance to explain what she actually meant. I honestely do not know what you mean here. How is saying yes you said me being thankful is a show of support to the Union, but if that is not what you mean please clearify dirty debating?

Okay.

'Then find new words to say that, then. For your current lines are almost exactly the same peddled by the defenders of the current system; to "be grateful in poverty, you'll be rewarded in heaven" shit. Gratitude is a tainted word to these folks - ones normally told by the well-fed to the hungry about being happy with a crust of stale bread. Don't you notice it's never the other way around - poor folks telling the rich to be grateful?' fixing Fran with a clear stare.

'Words have power; that's one of the few things me and the Hermetics agree on. Now, you can either understand that for some in this country the words "gratitude" and "thankful" has become poisoned and twisted from the meaning you mean, or you can bitch at them for not understanding you right.' Nicole retorted. 'It's why I never, ever use 'em. Even if they are right, in the like dictionary sense.' a short pause, before giving a tiny smirk.

'It's why we don't have gay old times no more.'

Nick makes it kinda clear twice that her objection for the use of *the word* gratitude. Fran ignores this and continues to attack on the 'being grateful for health etc' line even after Nick clarifies by saying;

'Not lost. Well, not completely.' Nicole retorted; being a lineal descendent of said utopians. 'And if you ask most working stiffs what they want - as in, would be happy with - it ain't actually that big; to have a decent home, reasonable health, a stable worthwhile job which can pay the bills and which leaves you with enough energy so you can live outside of it.'

And

'I do appreciate the good things of the world

That's a dirty debating style; answering a 'point' which you'd prefer to answer than the real one. Which is why she compared it to Fox News, who do this all the time.

Which is why Nick refused to explain the point again. When you've tried to explain for several rounds and it's not got through, you are disinclined to try again [I would be].

Nick makes it kinda clear twice that her objection for the use of *the word* gratitude. Fran ignores this and continues to attack on the 'being grateful for health etc' line even after Nick clarifies by saying;

It is not clear also what Fran object to is that her practice of gratitude support the Union, protestign this is not debating dirty.

That's a dirty debating style; answering a 'point' which you'd prefer to answer than the real one. Which is why she compared it to Fox News, who do this all the time.

Which is why Nick refused to explain the point again. When you've tried to explain for several rounds and it's not got through, you are disinclined to try again [I would be].

Fran replied to every thing Nicole said, that she did nto reply what Nicole wanted or bend over and agree with her is not dirty debating. Again this is characters debating whyt he fuck is it dragged into real life?

Fran might have replied to everything Nick said, but it didn't always make sense as a reply. After all, Nick asks about the baggage of the term gratitude and the the reply is the same 'I am grateful for my health' line which doesn't actually answer the point. Thus the 'dirty debate' line.

Anyway, Nick's point is a somewhat nuanced one. As it's proven impossible to explain IC, I shall do it OOC.

#1: In the wrong hands, gratitude can be a plea for people to be docile and accepting of 'the way things are'.
#2: Societies which have a majority of people like that can be pretty stable and sturdy.
#3: The Union would benefit from a inert Sleeper society which accepts their leadership and views without argument.

This was why Nick was cautioning to make sure any message about being grateful for things like family, friends etc doesn't by accident come out as a plea to 'be grateful for what you have', and just accept the status quo [an excellent form of social control]. Basically, a variant of the 'opium of the people' line; and as the current rulers of society, the Union would benefit from high opium sales. And she'd really not like friends to be dealers.

As for 'dragging it into real life'; I needed to find out whether it was Fran being dense/disingenuous IC or you genuinely didn't get the thrust of argument. It's not a question about 'agreeing' with the point; I can see the logic behind, say evangelical Christians and still think it's a complete load of BS.

Not for the first time, I suspect the culprit is 'quote-slicing'; a situation where parts of a post are all 'replied to', but the message as the whole is not. Happens to all of us at times, esp when there's no single post to spell it all out.

(OOC: To be quite honest I just as flabbergasted by Nicole's changes in topic and the way allot of her discussios, including this one end up as may of those aroud her are, however a IC debate is not really relevant out of character. The debate with fra started with a debate over Cantries not being required to offer one another assistence so diplomacy was needed, which is what Fran have defended the freedom of induvidual Chantries and also that any change to the way the Traditions work should be slow and gradual and Nicole making it suddenly about the Chantry gym and car pool and a massive appeal to authority which is confusing as hell.)

*nods with understanding*. Ah, I get it now. Let me explain OOC. No, we *do* need this because I suspect it's this which will cause me to do a rage-quit at some point (have come close twice so far) and this is an excellent example of. (see above)

There is no real 'change in topic' because the topic *is* 'Chantries changing their operations for the better' - so Nicole's point(s) are still on-topic, merely a wider one. What she was trying to do was a kind of 'appeal to track record' and 'appeal to professionalism' - the first bit that she has had good ideas in the past (cars, gym) and Fran's seen her mission planning, and the latter pointing out this *is* basically 'within her skill remit'. She then did an 'appeal to background'; that despite the headstong, idealistic demenour she's actually much more cautious and pragmatic with changes. After all, she is a Scientist, and she's not produced a solid plan yet because amongst other things, she's not even broached the subject with either Colin or the Chief yet. For all she knows, a senior may already *have* a plan for this and just needs to be put into action, or there's elements of the current system she's unaware of.

Fran's replies appear either disingenuous, anal or just dim; she does not reply to Nicole's points, she simply dismisses them all as 'not relevant'. Which is true, if you stick to a very narrow definition of. But that really doesn't look good; it's akin to dismissing all evidence of you being a good cook on the basis none of the points were about you cooking a two-tier christmas cake. Nicole appears to be 'all over the place' because she is trying to find an angle which Fran will interact with (and fails). The dismissal of the 'appeal to track record/personality' rather hurt, because Fran basically said 'I don't believe all the evidence otherwise so far. You are a complete loose cannon and don't trust you.' The dismissal of the 'appeal to professionalism' is even worse; even though Fran admits she does not know what Military Science *is*. Nicole doesn't have much, pride-wise. But one of the few areas she *does* is her professionalism. In this respect, it's like insulting a Hermetic's honour, and that's what Fran did. The 'appeal to background' dismissal topped it off; she's a Scientist, damnit and that means you follow the scientific method.

So in short, if Nick was a medical doctor, Fran refused to look at the 'testimonials', ignored all previous personal interactions with the doctor, demanded to know the success of the treatment even *before* the examination, dismissed the certification on the wall and then accused her of being a complete quack. You simply cannot do that to someone and expect to get away with it.

But... I have offered a lifeline. If Fran does read up on both 'scientfic method' and 'military science' she may realise just how insulting she was and backtrack later.

That is not how pepole talk it is basically like discussing whatever or ot to ave paprica in the salad and then the other person screams so you are against vegans...no I said I did nto want paprica in my dinner salad, that someting is loosely related with no segway what so ever oly lead to confusion. Also pepole react to what a person is saying it do nto really matter what they have done in the past, if a person say I think everyone with brown hair should jump off a cliff that will reacted to no matter the person's track record. I would have replied exactly as Fran did in that situation, She do reply to every one of Nicole's points.

To take your example about cooking, if te discussio is a wedding cake, it do not matter A what background a person have or what they ahve done in the past if tey say, well I think we should just piss on the finished cake, I mean a ehm are you kiddig might be expected but the thing is words have meaning, so whe someone say something what they say are reacted to.

Fran have replied to every one of Nicole's points I am just flabbergasted you claim she have not, this hwole complaint of yours makes aboslutely no sense to me. I also do not see what the sceientific method have to do with this. Nicole demand change, have no pla for how that change should be and then ridicule all who do not just jump at chage without even a bit of a plan. Had she then gone on to explain for example I meant small changes like communal cars then sure Fran woudl say yes that is a great change go for it.

As for the medical doctor example, if a doctor said something I just found wrong, like for example that it would just be to loose wight never mind any reasos for overwight it would nto really matter what they had done in the past or what tohers thought of this person as a doctor, their words in that consultation would be reacted to.

Fran have i no way claimed Nicole is a quack, she have said that a jump before you look attitude to change is not something she is in favor of. Like I said I am completley flabbergasted about your reaction here.

I shall say this now.

I am not happy one iota with your answer.

I am not one bit reassured by your answer. In fact, the opposite is true.

I shall get back to you properly when I am less... emotional?

I can not give you another answer as I do not understad one bit of what you are upset about or your logic here. I ahve asked others to have a look at it and they do nto really get it either. I accept that this is a problem for you, but I simply do not understad it is like you are speaking a completley different language.

You can get back to the discussion when you feel like it, I likely will not have allot o tome today as I am celebrating the Full Moon and I am playing D&D tonight.

Clearely there is a miss understanding on how we inteprent the world but I frankly can not understand a word of meaning from this whole situation.

Well, then Great One. We have only two solutions left. Either I can get you to understand Nicole's reasoning ['understand' does *not* mean 'agree with'], or I, regretfully feel that I can no longer continue playing in this chronicle as Nicole.

This isn't me trying to bully or guilt you into me getting my own way. This point is so pivotal in regards to Nicole's very self that if you continue to believe that she makes no sense whatsoever – no, worse, that no person *could* think like this – you've basically told me she is not a possible character. And when you say that, well these is only one ending.

In an attempt to be as clear as possible, I shall do my best to explain via bullet-points, so the development of the argument can be most obvious.


- Everyone has pride. Attributes, achievements, skills they have etc which they give significant emotional weight to. For example, the Chief is proud of his honour [like many Hermetics are]. Call a Hermetic's honour into question... well, that's fighting talk.

- Nicole has little to be proud of. Before Awakening she was a screw-up. She ran out on her family, collecting up a long list of failure in all areas of her life. What the Etherites did on finding her was basically, take her, make her into a soldier, to nurture her professionalism, to take pride in her work. It's *become* her.

- This is common enough. Colin himself, when expressing the disgust for the cheap conversion of the candlesticks was showing his 'offended professionalism'. If you want to insult a skilled tattoo artist, ask them to copy some terrible photo from a magazine on the cheap. Imagine the look on an experienced tree surgeon's face if you say 'it's just a bit of trimming' and try to pay them minimum wage. Or to suggest to a carpenter that their trade is no more difficult than putting together flat-pack furniture.

- Nicole's 'professionalism' in this case Military Science. This isn't just how to kill effectively, but it's also how to plan missions, organise defences, to train people and yes, make long term strategies. It could be said this is the difference between a warrior and a soldier – that the latter is a professional who has chosen war as their profession.

- Then comes the discussion about Chantries supporting each other. It's a known, obvious flaw in the Chantry system [it allows them to be picked off one by one]. This topic is clearly within the remit of 'Military Science' - Nicole's 'professional subject'.

- But Fran isn't having any of this. She *assumes* that any idea Nicole has on this subject will be guided by 'politics' alone. She openly says so.

- That is difficult to *not* see as an insult, a slur on Nicole's professionalism. Fran is basically saying 'your suggestion will be shit even before I have heard it'. Worse, she indirectly suggests Nicole is *not* a Scientist; that she will not follow logical reasoning in coming up with any solutions. I think that bit is the worst bit; telling Nick she's a bad Scientist is one thing [and she might agree to that], but saying she's not a Scientist at all is truly insulting.

- In an attempt to persuade Fran of her 'professionalism', Nicole tries to cite other 'reforms' she's either done or is trying to do. The cars and gym were both done with the *military* potential in mind; pooled cars mean that folk won't feel bad if they get trashed/blown up/in the river and the gym is an attempt to encourage physical fitness in the Chantry [and thus, combat ability]. The desire to get some kind of 'kit fund' going is another aspect of this; the idea being that if Fran [or anybody] doesn't have to work all those extra hours to make good losses, that's more hours they can spend helping at the Chantry and/or improving their skills.

- Fran's reply is to simply say they're all irrelevant. That's particularly hurting, knowing that Fran has seen Nick's planning skills and so far, they've paid off. A direct example of her professionalism. Yet... ignored? That's hard to not see that as insulting, for one who's proud of their skills.

So, to recap. Fran in short order, repeatedly insulted Nicole's a) professional skill, b) her scientific mindset and c) track record. To a person who deeply values those three things. And you *wonder* why Nicole's annoyed as hell over this? Coming from a woman who's seen her in action to boot? Hasn't Nicole actually saved Fran's life at one point? Sure, Fran might have doubts towards her solution working or even being sensible, but hasn't Nicole *earned* at least the right to be heard on this?


I am not going to mince words. One of the reasons we're in this jam is that you've repeatedly been 'hearing' things which have not been 'said'. One example shall suffice.

"No Nicole that is not what I am saying. I am saying that leaping before you look, and trying to change how the Traditions work without even having a plan as to what those changes should be is not going to work and is not wise."
Fran said with a sigh.

Problems:

#1: Nicole is still alive. Reckless people in combat usually die quickly.
#2: Similar can be said about auto mechanics who don't think about what they're doing before doing it.
#3: Nicole's mission planning meetings have been detailed to the point to being anal. Suggests character *does* 'look before leaping'.
#4: Nicole never offered any plan for Fran to say are wrong.
#5: Nicole never suggested such a course of action.

Nicole takes these things very seriously because she knows screw-ups lead to dead people. Yet here Fran seems to suggest Nicole is a careless leader. Even when the NPC's own experiences of the PC suggest otherwise.

Where *have* you got this viewpoint from? It keeps on coming up. My best guess is this; it's because Nicole calls herself a Communist. You think she wants to trash everything and then make something new [when her real goal is to build, then trash the old]. She's not an anarchist or student radical; more the old-school blue-collar militant which traditionally would go via trade unions into left-wing politics. Colin IC got her measure well; comparing her to a 'pre-Stalin Bolshevik Commissar'. He might see echoes of this in how she acts; doesn't 'do charity' but she is much bigger in mutual aid and collective action.

Sorry I didn't get back to chip in earlier - I was out cold most of the weekend, and it's been A Week at work so far with scarce time to think.

Okay, to recap a little - here's what Nicole is fairly indisputably guilty of:

Poking The Bear/Rising To Provocation. Nicole is rough and very much Not Delicate in how she addresses people and situations. This does go both ways, especially when someone like a certain Hermetic with a higher ranking decided to make a pissing contest of it, and poked the bear back. This has led to some issues in the long run, because the other bear had political interest. It's going to take a bit of time to resolve that mess, but it was, in fact, not Nicole's fault that the situation happened in the first place, and we haven't got around to clearing that all up IC yet. She was deliberately provoked, and unfortunately she answered in an exploitable manner.

Lacking Tact. Making Nazi comments to the one Mage in the Chantry who happens to have been born and raised in Germany in the 1930s and 40s was... not a good way to make friends. In fairness, Nicole didn't know that about Hildegard, but it's not the only faux pas. We all make'em, but most try some backpedaling right away.

Then there's what we can debate back and forth:

Too Detail-Oriented. She's shown a tendency to get lost in the small details, to the point of missing the bigger picture, which does present something of a problem in strategic planning. This is a good-with-the-bad/bad-with-the-good thing.

Breaking the Old Structures. So, part of the issue stems, I think, from a miscommunication here - Nick's not been entirely clear on the building new structures before scrapping the old, I think, which is where a lot of the dissonance might stem from. Where a lot of us might still be working in a headspace using the current organizational structures and protocols, and exploiting old loopholes, Nicole's been doing a lot of (perceived) ranting and raving about how the Traditions should do things instead, with seemingly little thought given to how to actually implement these changes first. That, I think, is the largest problem, as some of Nicole's ideas are decidedly better than what the Traditions have in place, but there's no way under the current system to work the better system in, due to plain and simple bureaucratic inertia. Trying to explain a better steering system to a steamroller driver just won't work all that well when the steering's broken and the steamroller is headed straight for you. It might be better to move out of the way first.

Now, tired Great Sage Monkey Equal to Heaven is tired and will go monkey about at work, after hammering down a quick IC post. Hope this bit of perspective will grant enlightenment to you both, or maybe I've missed the mark a bit in my slightly fatigued state, too.

This isn't me trying to bully or guilt you into me getting my own way. This point is so pivotal in regards to Nicole's very self that if you continue to believe that she makes no sense whatsoever – no, worse, that no person *could* think like this – you've basically told me she is not a possible character. And when you say that, well these is only one ending.

Well that is not exactly true, that someone's resoning is impossible for me to understand do nto meat hey can not exist or that soeone could not tink like that, it just mean I can not wrap my head around how they think.

In an attempt to be as clear as possible, I shall do my best to explain via bullet-points, so the development of the argument can be most obvious.


- Everyone has pride. Attributes, achievements, skills they have etc which they give significant emotional weight to. For example, the Chief is proud of his honour [like many Hermetics are]. Call a Hermetic's honour into question... well, that's fighting talk.

- Nicole has little to be proud of. Before Awakening she was a screw-up. She ran out on her family, collecting up a long list of failure in all areas of her life. What the Etherites did on finding her was basically, take her, make her into a soldier, to nurture her professionalism, to take pride in her work. It's *become* her.

- This is common enough. Colin himself, when expressing the disgust for the cheap conversion of the candlesticks was showing his 'offended professionalism'. If you want to insult a skilled tattoo artist, ask them to copy some terrible photo from a magazine on the cheap. Imagine the look on an experienced tree surgeon's face if you say 'it's just a bit of trimming' and try to pay them minimum wage. Or to suggest to a carpenter that their trade is no more difficult than putting together flat-pack furniture.

No one have siad otherwise however not agreeing with Nicole on something sh considers to be her field is not doing any of these things.

- Nicole's 'professionalism' in this case Military Science. This isn't just how to kill effectively, but it's also how to plan missions, organise defences, to train people and yes, make long term strategies. It could be said this is the difference between a warrior and a soldier – that the latter is a professional who has chosen war as their profession.

- Then comes the discussion about Chantries supporting each other. It's a known, obvious flaw in the Chantry system [it allows them to be picked off one by one]. This topic is clearly within the remit of 'Military Science' - Nicole's 'professional subject'.

- But Fran isn't having any of this. She *assumes* that any idea Nicole has on this subject will be guided by 'politics' alone. She openly says so.

- That is difficult to *not* see as an insult, a slur on Nicole's professionalism. Fran is basically saying 'your suggestion will be shit even before I have heard it'. Worse, she indirectly suggests Nicole is *not* a Scientist; that she will not follow logical reasoning in coming up with any solutions. I think that bit is the worst bit; telling Nick she's a bad Scientist is one thing [and she might agree to that], but saying she's not a Scientist at all is truly insulting.

Yes considering just how political Nicole is, and how she behave with others especially in social issues yes she assumed that Nicole's inflience would be part of the argument. She never said Nicole was not a scientist not what so ever, she said that to demand that a system be changed, and then not come up with any ideas for how that system should be changed and in addition ridiculing those who would nto immediatly jump at any change is dumb. Now I do not see how that in any way shape or form should insult Nicole's skills. Fran did not say she think Nicole's argumet is politcs alone but yes she do believe it is part of it, especially since Communism very much is about the needs of the many over induvidual freedom, which is really her argument for why Chantries should be alloved to rule themselves even if that not be the most tactical effecint, induvidual freedom is more important in this matter than to be an efficeint army, you can not fight the Technocrazy by becoming them.

Fran is NOT saying your suffjestion will be shit before she have even heard it, she is saying please give me a suggjestion and not just complaints that things are not ideal, she asked for this several times.

- In an attempt to persuade Fran of her 'professionalism', Nicole tries to cite other 'reforms' she's either done or is trying to do. The cars and gym were both done with the *military* potential in mind; pooled cars mean that folk won't feel bad if they get trashed/blown up/in the river and the gym is an attempt to encourage physical fitness in the Chantry [and thus, combat ability]. The desire to get some kind of 'kit fund' going is another aspect of this; the idea being that if Fran [or anybody] doesn't have to work all those extra hours to make good losses, that's more hours they can spend helping at the Chantry and/or improving their skills.

So let me see if I get it right, Fran should igore all words Nicole is saying and agree with her because se have done improvements to Steelhaven, so thereofre she have to be right about all commentes about Chantries. However the same thing should not count when it comes to observed bhavior when it comes to Nicole ignoring tactics and putting her Cabal in danger to give sass to a higher ranking mage, on several occasion, that should be irrelevant but all behavior that is benefisial should banish all doubt for all future? Also Fran really do not think about the improvments to Steelhavenin that way, and most who do not have a military background do not.

- Fran's reply is to simply say they're all irrelevant. That's particularly hurting, knowing that Fran has seen Nick's planning skills and so far, they've paid off. A direct example of her professionalism. Yet... ignored? That's hard to not see that as insulting, for one who's proud of their skills.

So in your mind if oeone have ever succseeded in anything or if they have a given edutcation they must be defered to in all things even remotely related to this or it is a insult to them personally? I mean I guess you can interpent the Protocols to say that but Nicole have argued against that very idea many times before, it seams a bit strange she expect it to apply whe it apply to her but not when it apply to anyone else.

So, to recap. Fran in short order, repeatedly insulted Nicole's a) professional skill, b) her scientific mindset and c) track record. To a person who deeply values those three things. And you *wonder* why Nicole's annoyed as hell over this? Coming from a woman who's seen her in action to boot? Hasn't Nicole actually saved Fran's life at one point? Sure, Fran might have doubts towards her solution working or even being sensible, but hasn't Nicole *earned* at least the right to be heard on this?

I disagree completely with this statement. If someone think disagreement is an isult to their professional pride would be incredibly ensitive and the problem is with them not the person who disagree.

I am not going to mince words. One of the reasons we're in this jam is that you've repeatedly been 'hearing' things which have not been 'said'. One example shall suffice.

"No Nicole that is not what I am saying. I am saying that leaping before you look, and trying to change how the Traditions work without even having a plan as to what those changes should be is not going to work and is not wise."
Fran said with a sigh.


Problems:

#1: Nicole is still alive. Reckless people in combat usually die quickly.
#2: Similar can be said about auto mechanics who don't think about what they're doing before doing it.
#3: Nicole's mission planning meetings have been detailed to the point to being anal. Suggests character *does* 'look before leaping'.
#4: Nicole never offered any plan for Fran to say are wrong.
#5: Nicole never suggested such a course of action.

For fuck's sake Nicole did before this directly reidicule anyone who would not immidiatly jump at a uncertain chance for change giving up whatever they already had in the hope the change would be something better. Fran's response is completley resonable considering that. Again words matter. o one is saying Nicole is not good in combat but she directly ridicule those who will not leap before they look and Fran respond to that which is completely resonable. Fran did not commet on any pla, she commented on Nicole's demand for change for the sake of change.

Nicole takes these things very seriously because she knows screw-ups lead to dead people. Yet here Fran seems to suggest Nicole is a careless leader. Even when the NPC's own experiences of the PC suggest otherwise.

Ok here is the problem, you are saying that someone should ignore what is being said for what have been done in to Fran's point of view's completely different situation. Rember that A: words matter. B: Most do not see the Traditions as a army so what Nicole do in combat is irrelevant to how Chantries are organized to Fran that is a social issue and Nicole do NOT have a good track record when it come to social situations, in fact there are very few she have talked with she have not managed to piss off. Inter Chantry politics to Fran is a diplomatic issue and Nicole is not good with that. Fran is not saying Nicole is reckless she is saying Nicole is rude ad crude and have little knowledge of how to make groups such as Chantries work together.

Where *have* you got this viewpoint from? It keeps on coming up. My best guess is this; it's because Nicole calls herself a Communist. You think she wants to trash everything and then make something new [when her real goal is to build, then trash the old]. She's not an anarchist or student radical; more the old-school blue-collar militant which traditionally would go via trade unions into left-wing politics. Colin IC got her measure well; comparing her to a 'pre-Stalin Bolshevik Commissar'. He might see echoes of this in how she acts; doesn't 'do charity' but she is much bigger in mutual aid and collective action.

Well Nicole have several time spoken i favor of violent revolution so there is that. Calling yourself Communist is not the problem but may will react badly when there is calls for killing pepole ad when there is ot even any plan for what would be achieved by this bloodshed that do give a pretty negative impression. he might nto have that opiio but that is what she have spoken in favor of with several Chatry members and that kind of talk do get a person pegged as a dangeorus radical.

To Warpmind well yes and now. The crux of the matter seam to be this:

Nicole and Fran argued about whatever or not Chantries should be required to help one another. Fran taking the point of view that it is great when they do but induvidual freedom have to take precedence so to make it a regal demand would be wrong. All this coming from Nicole wanting the Boston mages to dump Lilyandra at the Seattle Cantry for a while and Fran saying that can not be done, they will nto agre to it and just dumpig the vampire there witotu agreement would give Steelhave a serious black mark which would lead to no other Chatries being willing to help them ever again.

The argumet is then this Nicole feel insulted because Fran do not agree with her because she is a military strageist and so when Fran do nto immediatly fold based on her education and achievments in combat it is a professional isult, at least as far as I understand the argument, and to be honest if that is the case to me that is ludicrus.

So this seam to be whatever or not it is ok to disagree with someone's who's education even slightly touches the topic of discussion, as far as I understand it and my option is that if someone can not handle that then it is not the one who disagree who is the problem.

Well that is not exactly true, that someone's resoning is impossible for me to understand do nto meat hey can not exist or that soeone could not tink like that, it just mean I can not wrap my head around how they think.

Why do you think I've spelt it out, then? To try to draw the 'logical line' in a manner which shows the thought-patterns of one who isn't you. Also, when you say things like 'people do not talk like that' and 'this whole complaint of yours makes aboslutely no sense to me'... well, what else *am* I supposed to think?

Yes considering just how political Nicole is, and how she behave with others especially in social issues yes she assumed that Nicole's inflience would be part of the argument. She never said Nicole was not a scientist

She indirectly did. By saying her idea wouldn't be based on facts, but politics instead. This is why she curtly told Fran to study 'the scientific method'. Scientists deal with facts and make a conclusion from them, not coming up with a random idea and then try to get it to fit reality [whether it does or not].

she said that to demand that a system be changed, and then not come up with any ideas for how that system should be changed and in addition ridiculing those who would nto immediatly jump at any change is dumb

Fran never asked for any ideas/suggestions on this topic. For if she had, Nicole would have said 'I do not know' or 'I don't have any yet'. She would have said that she needed to find out what was currently being done, and whether any seniors already had a plan ready to go etc. To basically follow the scientific method on solving the problem. Which would have then made the 'not looking before you leap' accusation even more strange.

So let me see if I get it right, Fran should igore all words Nicole is saying and agree with her because se have done improvements to Steelhaven, so thereofre she have to be right about all commentes about Chantries. However the same thing should not count when it comes to observed bhavior when it comes to Nicole ignoring tactics and putting her Cabal in danger to give sass to a higher ranking mage, on several occasion, that should be irrelevant but all behavior that is benefisial should banish all doubt for all future? Also Fran really do not think about the improvments to Steelhavenin that way, and most who do not have a military background do not.

This isn't about Fran. They, as an NPC can be, say and believe whatever. You're the ST, that's your right. If Nick's words manage to prod Fran into reading those two topics suggested and she realises that perhaps she was overly harsh/aggressive/whatever, it would be nice.

This is merely whether if you can at least 'understand where Nicole is coming from' purely OOC. I'm not even saying Nicole's thought-patterns are right, but they are hers. Oh, this also means I don't always agree either. Hell, I've played non-human characters in WoD before, so it's not like this situation is the first time.

[When *did* Nick ignore tactics and put cabal in danger? Can't be in combat; I'd remember that.]

So in your mind if oeone have ever succseeded in anything or if they have a given edutcation they must be defered to in all things even remotely related to this or it is a insult to them personally? I mean I guess you can interpent the Protocols to say that but Nicole have argued against that very idea many times before, it seams a bit strange she expect it to apply whe it apply to her but not when it apply to anyone else.

No. Just the point that when a person has shown repeately they *are* cautious [perhaps to a fault, as Colin said], it's very odd when they're then accused of being reckless.

For fuck's sake Nicole did before this directly reidicule anyone who would not immidiatly jump at a uncertain chance for change giving up whatever they already had in the hope the change would be something better. Fran's response is completley resonable considering that. Again words matter. o one is saying Nicole is not good in combat but she directly ridicule those who will not leap before they look and Fran respond to that which is completely resonable. Fran did not commet on any pla, she commented on Nicole's demand for change for the sake of change.

You are not hearing me.

Fran's response is completley resonable considering what you assume.

How many times do I need to say that Nick did not offer an alternative for Fran to criticise?

Or point out the idea of 'leaping before looking' goes against the IC experiences of working with Nicole so far?

Let me spell this out now. And forever.

Nicole has never, ever demanded 'change for the sake of change'. Every change 'demanded' is to fix weakness [real or percieved].

Well Nicole have several time spoken i favor of violent revolution so there is that. Calling yourself Communist is not the problem but may will react badly when there is calls for killing pepole ad when there is ot even any plan for what would be achieved by this bloodshed that do give a pretty negative impression. he might nto have that opiio but that is what she have spoken in favor of with several Chatry members and that kind of talk do get a person pegged as a dangeorus radical.

Actually, Nicole has *not* called for people to be killed. Her view is an expectation that when push comes to shove, the 'other side' will take up arms and well, you'd better be ready for that day, because placards and petitions won't work if troops are shooting you down in the street. In short, she expects at some point some shitty Handmaid's Tale / It Can't Happen Here / Deus Ex thing to happen in the USA, and well she doesn't plan to go down without a fight. [And purely OOC; knowing we are IC close to the Trump presidency, with the mass riots and Capitol Storming, it cannot be said her fears are completely unjustified]. In fact, knowing that the Union support the current system and they kill, torture, brainwash and unperson those who get in their way... now, who's calling Nick a dangerous radical now?

Plus, Nicole is much more a 'mama bear' focused violence than a unfocused thug type. I've worked to show her 'off duty' [with Cava, Serge etc] and the fact 'the job' does bother her. Including the fact she's pretty good at it.

Ok I am going to have to cut this up ito bits. I do nto have the spoons to deal with that wall of text in a one go, especially since I feel I am just butting my head against this. So I will have to reply in sevral smaller posts over several days.

Why do you think I've spelt it out, then? To try to draw the 'logical line' in a manner which shows the thought-patterns of one who isn't you. Also, when you say things like 'people do not talk like that' and 'this whole complaint of yours makes aboslutely no sense to me'... well, what else *am* I supposed to think?

Well no one else I have tried to ask for advice about this manner have understood your problem either so you can take that as you wish.

She indirectly did. By saying her idea wouldn't be based on facts, but politics instead. This is why she curtly told Fran to study 'the scientific method'. Scientists deal with facts and make a conclusion from them, not coming up with a random idea and then try to get it to fit reality [whether it does or not].

For fuck sake that is just dumb. o if anyone elver say anything negative about something Nicole is saying or just do nto accept it out of hand or even suggjest her pretty extreme political views are a part of it are saying she is ot a scientist. Tat is about the best example of being over sensitive I have ever seen.

Fran never asked for any ideas/suggestions on this topic. For if she had, Nicole would have said 'I do not know' or 'I don't have any yet'. She would have said that she needed to find out what was currently being done, and whether any seniors already had a plan ready to go etc. To basically follow the scientific method on solving the problem. Which would have then made the 'not looking before you leap' accusation even more strange.

Fran asked several times what Nicole wanted the change she demanded to be.

This isn't about Fran. They, as an NPC can be, say and believe whatever. You're the ST, that's your right. If Nick's words manage to prod Fran into reading those two topics suggested and she realises that perhaps she was overly harsh/aggressive/whatever, it would be nice.

She will not simply because I have made Fran to be a resonable person by my standards and I do not think she said or did anything wrong in the discussion between her and Nicole.

This is merely whether if you can at least 'understand where Nicole is coming from' purely OOC. I'm not even saying Nicole's thought-patterns are right, but they are hers. Oh, this also means I don't always agree either. Hell, I've played non-human characters in WoD before, so it's not like this situation is the first time.

I can not, the only thing I can understand from this is that icole is over sensitive so that if anyone ever disagree with anything she see as her field it is a professional insult to her and if anyone ever suggjest hse is human and not a robot and so gets affected by their emotions, politics, interestest and other factors it is saying she is nto a scientist, and that is fine you can play a over sensitive character but do not expect me to see them as anything but over senstive. But why this have to be tak to an ooc ting no I do nto get it.

And I need a break I will reply mroe when I have the energy to do so.

Part two.

[When *did* Nick ignore tactics and put cabal in danger? Can't be in combat; I'd remember that.]

She got into a fight with a senior magi, instead of going to a superior with her supicions which if it had not turned out that the guy was crooked could have gotten the Cabal into trouble which could be very bad for Beatrice who have a re sentencig coming up and her good standing is vitally important. Getting into a fight with a seior magi rom anothr Chantry is also a good way to sour relations with the other Chantry which could have cost Steelhave an ally in future coflicts.

No. Just the point that when a person has shown repeately they *are* cautious [perhaps to a fault, as Colin said], it's very odd when they're then accused of being reckless.

Fran NEVER commented on Nicole's actions in combat, never, she said that calling for drasic change without a plan is reckless ad Nicole have done that, rpetedly.

You are not hearing me.

Fran's response is completley resonable considering what you assume.

How many times do I need to say that Nick did not offer an alternative for Fran to criticise?

Or point out the idea of 'leaping before looking' goes against the IC experiences of working with Nicole so far?

Let me spell this out now. And forever.

Nicole has never, ever demanded 'change for the sake of change'. Every change 'demanded' is to fix weakness [real or percieved].

I have nto said that Nicole offered an alterative, I hav repetadly said that is part of the problem from Fran ad many who speak with Nicole's poit of view, she demand change, often goign so far as to advocate violence to attai that change but she hav no plan as to what that change should be.

Nicole did howver ridicule those who would not leap before they look and jump at a chance for change.

The problem form Fran's poit of view i that if you take a system that work, that might be flawed but it works and then just complain about it ad demand change but you do not have a plan for what that change should be and how it is implemented ad then ridicule those who would not leap at such a change then that is rather reckless.

Actually, Nicole has *not* called for people to be killed. Her view is an expectation that when push comes to shove, the 'other side' will take up arms and well, you'd better be ready for that day, because placards and petitions won't work if troops are shooting you down in the street. In short, she expects at some point some shitty Handmaid's Tale / It Can't Happen Here / Deus Ex thing to happen in the USA, and well she doesn't plan to go down without a fight. [And purely OOC; knowing we are IC close to the Trump presidency, with the mass riots and Capitol Storming, it cannot be said her fears are completely unjustified]. In fact, knowing that the Union support the current system and they kill, torture, brainwash and unperson those who get in their way... now, who's calling Nick a dangerous radical now?

Plus, Nicole is much more a 'mama bear' focused violence than a unfocused thug type. I've worked to show her 'off duty' [with Cava, Serge etc] and the fact 'the job' does bother her. Including the fact she's pretty good at it.

The problem is that in pepole's mind ve if icole have not said jay let us murder pepole, whe she gleefully endovse bloody recolution that put her in the category of fantatic by most. Badically she have rearely said that she fear a future where the Uion contorl will go to far and there will break out war, she have always sounded like she is ceering on a repeat of the Russion revolution. Now I am not saying that is Nicole's option, that is not the point here I am saying that is the way she speaks that give pepole that impresion. It is like this if you wear a tshirt that say meat is murder with PETA's logo, pepole will assume you are a bit of a nut, eve if you just happen to wear that shirt since it is your sister's and it was the only thing that was clean when you was heading out the door.

Plus, Nicole is much more a 'mama bear' focused violence than a unfocused thug type. I've worked to show her 'off duty' [with Cava, Serge etc] and the fact 'the job' does bother her. Including the fact she's pretty good at it.

Here is the problem PCs have nto read icole's character sheet or all of her posts, like witht he Tgirt example they get a snapshot and then base their assumptions on that.

Nicole the way she behave would fit right into the sterotype, 90's Brujah, and that mean she is going to rub allot of pepole the worng way, that is sort of what happens when one is playing a rebel that never try to be diplomatic in how they behave with others, that do not mean such a character is wrong but it give an certain impression. If you did not want to ed up i allot on IC arguments then playing a very confrontational character might nto have been the best option.

Let's get to the core of the problem.

I can live with *all* the rest - it's either not important, or simply a matter of perspective, or similar. But not this bit.

You clearly think Nicole's whole motivation / actions on this are stupid / hugely sensitive / not understandable at all as an ST. Or something.

What's so hard to visualise that her 'reprogramming' after Awakening as a soldier [which I have put in her very backstory - that she did not *choose* to become what she is today] has made Nick defend her 'professionalism' as such and feel pretty insulted when it's questioned repeatedly?

[No, I don't care if you say the logical links are 'wrong'. Different people think in different ways and this attribute is super-important to her right now. If Nicole was like a wild horse, it's this which broke her in enough to accept shoes and commands.]

Why is it unduly sensitive to consider the fact that the belief that she is a logical, rational Scientist is a keystone of her very paradigm and thus needs to be preserved at almost any cost?

[C'mon, what did Fran really expect after repeatedly saying they're illogical and unscientific?]

How is it stupid to consider that every Awakened is, frankly 'weird' in at least *one* way and that when it comes to intra-Tradition harmony [or at least avoiding mass blood on the carpet] it's best to avoid directly challenging the basics of another's paradigm?

[You shall notice, Great One that of all the topics Nick has kicked against, she's not given even the most 'mystical' of Tradition paradigms even the tiniest of taps. Nassa, Hildegard etc may all have their axes to grind against her, but 'disrespecting my magick' cannot be one of them. In fact, Nicole's actually rather polite in this regard by saying she is 'too stupid to understand' or similar when forced into a confrontation on the subject.]

Do you see why I'm digging in my heels in here? You're basically asking me to a rebuild of a key aspect of her personality, change her backstory and edit her paradigm? That is a serious retool.

Telling me repeatedly nobody thinks like this is hardly endearing me to this game right now either, I'm afraid.

EDIT: This is why I'm not looking at the IC right now. I'm consciously not investing any more [emotionally/time/effort] until I know it's not for nothing.

If I am right in my understandig, which admittadly are more guess than anything as I still do not really understand your problem here, if someone think that a person disagreeing with anything that might touch what is their field of study is a personal insult then yes that is beig oversly sensitive.

If it is seen as a personal insult to not think your character to have flawless resoning at every and all things they say and do, completley unaffected by their backrounds, plitics, religion and any other factor because they are a scietist and a soldier then yes that is overly sensitive.

Now do that mean I think all of Nicole's motivation is overly sensitive or stupid, no off course now, and allot of her motivations overall is fully understandable, you as a player's reactio to this in character argument between Nicole and a NPC is however not understanable. Try to understand thisif this had been a in character response that would have been completley fine, if icole is over sensitive in some areas that is completley ok, and her getting angry at Fran for triggering what she have uncetinties about is completley ok, what is a problem here is that you get insulted as a player to a argument in character.

Characters have hang ups, uncertinties and fear and flaws, this is what make them interesting and that at times make them at odd with other characters, that is part of what makes a good story, but the problem is if one can not seperate the responses of a character from one's own responses.

Nicole seeing Fran's responses as an insult to her professionalism as a scientist and a soldier is completley ok and might be completely understandable from the various hang ups she have as a character, what is the problem is that you demand I am the ST and other NPCs to see things the same way that Nicole do.

Look at it this way my character in one of the D&D games I am playing in have a huge problem with abadonment issues, this make him get far to involved with those he spend some time with, which lead to great grief when these pepole leave his life, which stranghte his abandonment issues and again this lead to often unresonable and unwise decisions. I play on this and at times this lead him into conflicts because that are his hang ups, but I understand that this is the character's hang up, that while his emotional responses are completley real and valid to him, they are no less not a rational responce, they are a over reaction created from continual trauma that have never been dealt with in a positive manner. This create a interesting point but if I demanded the GM and other players see things the same way as this character there would be a problem, if I could not seperate my responses form that of the character. I do not demand that it is reonsable for example when my character argue with the others to rescuse some monter he have latched his emotions onto, even if it from the character's point of view and his hang ups it is completely resonable.

In short Nicole's repsonses would be great roleplaying the problem is you demad everyone else in character and out of character agree with her and think that she is right

I also do not agree that ran said she was illogical and uncisentific, not agreeing with a person is not saying they are uscientific or ilogical. I will never think that what Fran said in any way shape or form said Nicole is unprofessional, unscientific or unreonable. However I completly accept that Nicole's hang ups can make her, the character think so, and that is completely ok as log as you do not demand I think so or that every NPC think so.

No oe have said Nicole is not scientific, no one. Now if Nicole's own hang up and background make her over ensitive that is perfectly ok, the problem again is that you seam to demand that OOC it should be rcognized that she is right and her response to Fran is completley rosonable, it might have been in light of her own hang ups as a character but that do not mean others will see it as so. Just like to my D&D character loving a creature of terrible evil he have just met and giving his life to protect it resonable to him, but it do nto mean others around him will see it that way.

Or if you want a real life example when I was a kid I was bullied into a nervous breakdown and came to expect that to be everyone's intnt. When me and my mother went to Denmark by boat a kid my age on th boat asked me to dance and I just lost my mind at him yelling at the poor kid, assumig it was all a trop to set me up and ridicule me. Now from my 11 year old self my resonse was perfectly resonable given my experience with other children, however that do not mean the resonse was actually all that resonable from everyone else's point of view.

I have never asked you to either rebuild any part of Nicole's personality, change her backstory or edit her Paradigm and I have no idea why you would think I have asked you to do so.

Now do that mean I think all of Nicole's motivation is overly sensitive or stupid, no off course now, and allot of her motivations overall is fully understandable, you as a player's reactio to this in character argument between Nicole and a NPC is however not understanable. Try to understand thisif this had been a in character response that would have been completley fine, if icole is over sensitive in some areas that is completley ok, and her getting angry at Fran for triggering what she have uncetinties about is completley ok, what is a problem here is that you get insulted as a player to a argument in character.

[Bolding mine]

No. Everything IC was fine [at least from an OOC perspective, Nick IC got pissed off]. My problem was only that when I did the PBP version of leaning over during a break of the game and saying 'you do get as ST the reasons my character is pissed off, right?' I didn't get that reassurance. In fact, the message I got was that you didn't OOC get it either. Which is why I felt if I explained it better OOC quick you'd then go 'ah, I get it now' and then move on. I wasn't asking you to OOC agree with the points, or to agree with how Nick joined them up - just to see why she put the dots where she did, the resulting picture and why it meant so much to her. [If nothing else, it's possible that even if Fran doesn't get it, another NPC *might* and explain it to her. Or work it out herself.]

What did annoy me were were statements like 'That is not how pepole talk' and 'this hwole complaint of yours makes aboslutely no sense to me.'. It was like you weren't even listening to me. All I wanted to hear was that you understood [which does *not* mean agree] the reasoning as an ST and instead I kept on getting repeated explanations to why I was wrong. If you spend many a line telling me that, you wonder why I got to the stage I felt you were telling me I was playing the character 'wrong'?

Admittedly, this was partly my fault. I should have realised sooner how the discussion had gotten stuck. I let my past poor experience with an ST who did such a thing to me before [the very game Nick was originally made for, none the less] colour my judgement. And for that, I apologise.

In short Nicole's repsonses would be great roleplaying the problem is you demad everyone else in character and out of character agree with her and think that she is right

No. I never asked for OOC agreement. Not on this, not on *anything* from the lips of a PC. Nor would I expect it. What you - or I, Warp or Jeremy - think/believe OOC stays OOC. Don't you remember that conversation we had way back after Brucato attacked you online? The topic was ultimately similar; about the wall between the player and character. And I'll point out I was 100% in agreement with you on that - that basically, it's a game, dammit and any IC/OOC connection is completely coincidental.

However, all this bitching has had a positive effect; it's allowed us to finally discover this old abscess. For it's a problem we've had before, as an old line from me shows...

As for 'dragging it into real life'; I needed to find out whether it was Fran being dense/disingenuous IC or you genuinely didn't get the thrust of argument. It's not a question about 'agreeing' with the point; I can see the logic behind, say evangelical Christians and still think it's a complete load of BS.

It's the same problem again. All I was looking for was reassurance that IC confusion didn't also mean OOC confusion. That was it. If nothing else, Nick doesn't explain herself well IC. I don't demand that NPCs agree with Nick, let alone you as an ST agree. That demand would be wrong on every level. If a player asked *me* as an ST for this, I'd tell them to go to hell [In fact, I feel a touch surprised you didn't tell me to, if you thought I was asking for this!].

And that when I got a 'I am confused' reply, I tried to explain the IC thought-patterns, which you then took to mean I was questioning your OOC view or something. Now, I'm not wanting to play the old blame-game here, but I do not see *how* I can make myself clearer than this;

Not the question I was asking. I shall spit it out: ST, do you at least understand why Nicole feels hurt/insulted? This is *not* asking whether you think you think either side is 'right'. Just looking for a bit of ST reassurance, here - because if you do 'get it', than it's all RP and that's fine. If you don't, despite all the 'stage directions' I've given to explain why, then we genuinely have a problem.

And finally, I get this, after lots of prodding;

Nicole seeing Fran's responses as an insult to her professionalism as a scientist and a soldier is completley ok and might be completely understandable from the various hang ups she have as a character, what is the problem is that you demand I am the ST and other NPCs to see things the same way that Nicole do.

[Bolding mine]

That's what I was wanting from the start. Literally, a one line 'yeah, I get it'. Nothing more or less.

And as it does seem you do get Nick's POV, we can continue after this apparently pointlessly jaw-grinding affair. Though it will take some time/effort for me to bring Nick back after the hiatus.