OOC For IC

Fine, I shall boil this down to the bare bones of my points. You can then answer as short as possible.

Because there's no real point going much further until you actually interact with my points.

#1. I reject your statement/belief that Nicole is 'an unpleasant person to be around' and 'constantly blowing up on things'. I believe you believe this by fixating on the negative interactions, not the positive/neutral ones - for example, with Cava, Henrietta, Serge, the Kinfolk etc. Are you going to rethink your assumption, esp if Nicole IC provides more examples for you on this?

#2. Do most NPCs believe that if someone disagrees with them on a topic of discussion, that makes them 'unpleasant'?

#3. Do you accept that just like Morgan misinterpreted Nicole's words/actions over Kyle, Nicole misinterpreted Fran's words? And that in both cases, the other character has to live with the consequences of that? That the worst way for them to go about it would be to dig in their heels, insist that the 'listener' was all wrong and their view of events was 100% right?

#4. If Nassa likes Nicole, has no issues with her and respects her skills - why has he also given up on her?

#5. I accept PCs have character development. Question is - are NPCs allowed character development too?

#6. If the above is 'yes', is Morgan allowed to have character development so he can become a better manager so they can get a better professional relationship with Nicole? Again, this isn't him 'giving her what she wants' or overlooking stuff or even 'being nice', it is simply trying a different strategy to see if it would work better. Otherwise, the NPCs etc will have to 'live with the consequences of their actions', which in this case will be Nicole being a very dull PC which I will most likely simply hand over to you to play from now on.

#1. I reject your statement/belief that Nicole is 'an unpleasant person to be around' and 'constantly blowing up on things'. I believe you believe this by fixating on the negative interactions, not the positive/neutral ones - for example, with Cava, Henrietta, Serge, the Kinfolk etc. Are you going to rethink your assumption, esp if Nicole IC provides more examples for you on this?

Well just to make a few examples. Blowing up on a 15 year old for enjoying going to school, blowing up on a hospital clerk who dared to ask for why Nicole wanted a guard on a patient instead of immediately being obedient, blowing up on a former school teacher again for being pro education. Blowing up on a friend for twisting her words to meaning she have somehow insulted her professionalism, right after blowing up on the same friend for being grateful for having a good life I could go on and on and on here, so no I will no rethink my assumption no.S She is nice until someone do, think or agree with something she do not then she tend to go on the attack.

#2. Do most NPCs believe that if someone disagrees with them on a topic of discussion, that makes them 'unpleasant'?

No absolutely not but the how said disagreement is expressed is what makes someone unpleasant.

#4. If Nassa likes Nicole, has no issues with her and respects her skills - why has he also given up on her?

Because he have advocated for her, given her chance after chance after chance and then she blow up on Jeffry and are directly rude to him since she did not get her will and he is tired. He assume that no matter how much leeway she get she will find a way to dig herself back into trouble.

#5. I accept PCs have character development. Question is - are NPCs allowed character development too?

They have had that, quite a bit of it over the course of the game.

#6. If the above is 'yes', is Morgan allowed to have character development so he can become a better manager so they can get a better professional relationship with Nicole? Again, this isn't him 'giving her what she wants' or overlooking stuff or even 'being nice', it is simply trying a different strategy to see if it would work better. Otherwise, the NPCs etc will have to 'live with the consequences of their actions', which in this case will be Nicole being a very dull PC which I will most likely simply hand over to you to play from now on.

Jeffry IS a good leader, he is skilled, tolerant, he care about the members of the Chantry and off course he is not perfect he is old fashioned at times and he do have a temper but he is made to be a good leader. I have no idea what you even mean with a different strategy. But yes he do teat Serge with a more gentle hand than most because the boy's self esteem issues. He is willing to be flexible, however he is not going to tolerate direct disrespect and insubordination, but if she express her needs to him he might be willing to negotiate with her.

Well just to make a few examples. Blowing up on a 15 year old for enjoying going to school, blowing up on a hospital clerk who dared to ask for why Nicole wanted a guard on a patient instead of immediately being obedient, blowing up on a former school teacher again for being pro education. Blowing up on a friend for twisting her words to meaning she have somehow insulted her professionalism, right after blowing up on the same friend for being grateful for having a good life I could go on and on and on here, so no I will no rethink my assumption no.S She is nice until someone do, think or agree with something she do not then she tend to go on the attack.

Nicole is a poor debater/communicator, but still hold she doesn't 'blow up' as much as you appear to think - sometimes she is trying to be provocative to make the other party think. But her poor skills means she is often misunderstood - I don't remember who the ex-teacher was but I can tell you Nicole is not against education, she is simply against the education system in America.

But that's a good counterpoint, isn't it? Nicole 'blew up' at Fran due to misunderstanding her points, while Morgan 'blew up' at Nicole for misunderstanding hers. So, I re-ask my third question;

#1. Do you accept that just like Morgan misinterpreted Nicole's words/actions over Kyle, like how Nicole misinterpreted Fran's words? And that in both cases, the other character has to live with the consequences of that? That the worst way for them to go about it would be to dig in their heels, insist that the 'listener' was all wrong and their view of events was 100% right?

No absolutely not but the how said disagreement is expressed is what makes someone unpleasant.

#2: And has it not occurred to anybody that if it's partly a case of 'not what you say but how you say it', perhaps the offender should be given training to stop it, rather than randomly having 'no!' shouted at them and punished?

Because he have advocated for her, given her chance after chance after chance and then she blow up on Jeffry and are directly rude to him since she did not get her will and he is tired. He assume that no matter how much leeway she get she will find a way to dig herself back into trouble.

Nicole was half cooked in her own skin, got winded and has just performed a decapitation with a small, rather unsuitable blade. I think she can be given a bit of slack for not being polite and diplomatic! Anyway;

#3: Do you think OOC it's all about 'Nicole getting her way'?

#4: Perhaps if Nassa likes Nicole, respects her skills and has had no problems with her personally - why doesn't he offer to informally mentor Nicole on some of her shit social skills etc? [I'm OOC perfectly okay with this, by the way.]

Jeffry IS a good leader, he is skilled, tolerant, he care about the members of the Chantry and off course he is not perfect he is old fashioned at times and he do have a temper but he is made to be a good leader. I have no idea what you even mean with a different strategy. But yes he do teat Serge with a more gentle hand than most because the boy's self esteem issues. He is willing to be flexible, however he is not going to tolerate direct disrespect and insubordination, but if she express her needs to him he might be willing to negotiate with her.

If he's a good leader, he should spot that Nicole does have some 'leader potential' herself - she is not scared of making judgement calls or taking initiative when needed. But that's the immediate issue; she's not getting support. Nicole is 'disrespectful' but Morgan has never told Nicole what his definition of disrespect is. Nicole is 'insubordinate' but Morgan has never told Nicole what his definition of insubordination is. Nobody has asked her why she does what she does; just to chew her out over doing it. This has led to Nicole coming to some conclusions which I am sure she would be told 'are wrong'.

Nicole won't raise these issues because she feels 'what she says can and will be used against her' and her main goal now is to avoid being punished or chewed out anymore. Plus, he's the boss. She isn't going to tell the boss to do boss things [esp now]. If they cannot work it out themselves they don't deserve to be the boss of Nicole. So the last question is;

#5: If Morgan is willing to 'be flexible', is he capable/willing to realise they're locked into a toxic relationship and try a different method to overcome this before he gives up?

I am heading home to visit my mother's place and I do not think I will have time for walls of OOC text, to answer the main point what I can do is set up a scene where Jeffry and Nicole can talk and perhaps find some common ground.

The key issue is at this moment, even if Nicole was asked outright, chances are she wouldn't answer ['what you say can and will be used against you...']. The most logical backdooring in this case would be that when Morgan meets Baynes off-screen, the latter can give him a few 'Nicole tips', like 'well, have you actually told her what you want? I find it's rather helpful...'. Because a fair % of the problems are classic 'cross-cultural communication' ones.

This doesn't need to be done straight away either; as long as I know that it's somewhere in the pipeline.

Plus, reading/editing on a phone is evil. I usually try to avoid it when I can.

Sure he can meet Maynes but whatever or not he is willing to follow such advice really depend on what he suggest, he think Nicole is an assert tot he Chantry but there is a limit to how far he is willing to go. So what exactly would Beynes recomend.

Yeah I hate writing on a phone.

I pretty much laid out in general terms which Baynes could tell Morgan in the 'wall of OOC text' [a lot of that is your quotes] I did on the 22nd [yeah, answering the other bit would also be nice]. The most immediate change is for him to simply improve communication - to express clearly what he does and does not expect from her. The other aspect would be [off the top of my head] would be for him to actually support her to become the subordinate that Morgan would like her to be.

Because right now he does sound a bit like a lazy boss who is going to toss/drive away a talented but uneven employee because they expect to be given a perfect employee wrapped up in a bow and with zero needs of their own. [I overdraw for effect, but not by much...]

The problem is I do not understand how to do that as I already see Jeffry as a supportive boss, so I would need some concrete examples of what he would be recommended to do.

This is getting to the stage I am going to say 'do your own research', like Googling 'how to manage difficult people' and reading that. I've ready pointed this out, repeatedly.

Morgan needs to communicate clearly with Nicole.

He says he doesn't want 'disrespect' or 'insubordination'. Has he actually told Nicole what his definitions for this are?

Nicole keeps on doing things he doesn't want her to. Has he ever taken the time to explain to Nicole how she should have handled it?

Morgan has repeatedly giving condescending lectures to Nicole which went down poorly because they make incorrect assumptions about her motives. Has he not considered actually finding out Nicole's motives etc to see if his assumptions are true?

If Morgan actually bothered to try to 'see things from Nicole's POV' [ie talking to her], be might be pleasantly surprised. And even if he is not, he will at least be able to significantly reduce the 'seagulling' which has made Nicole unplayable.

The other aspect - that of rather persistent invalidation of aspects Nicole's very being - is something that can be worked on. Nicole's no way an innocent party here but treating her like she is 'broken' and that she needs to be 'fixed' is in Nicole's head putting them in the same camp as the Union and their myriad of hangers-on who have spent their lives trying to hammer her into fitting their identikit moulds [and look where it got them?]

I will see what can be done I am not sure I get all your points but I can get the ball rolling and we will see where we end up.

https://resources.workable.com/tutorial/what-is-onboarding

https://peoplethriver.com/how-to-communicate-effectively-to-motivate-employees/

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cross-culture.asp

https://psychcentral.com/health/reasons-you-and-others-invalidate-your-emotional-experience

Nicole needs all four of these too, but it takes two to dance.

Re: thread.

Nicole was offering her rifle to one of the Enforcers....

Ah ok, well they have their own weaponry.

Fair enough, but if they're packing 'Sleeper-grade' handguns Nick's Mosin would have had higher damage and range...

Yeah they might grab it when they get a chance. Their weapons have been enhanced though they are Etherites after all.

The ones at TimeStop weren't. And Nicole doesn't have much faith in them right now due to the repeated examples of security sloppiness.

Anyway, they can't have the rifle now because Nick has left the scene and it's still on her back...

Well of at the convention are not combatants they are just folks who attend an convention.

Timestop security personnel. They didn't lockdown the building when the dragon attacked, did they?

They started but it is not so easy to just lock down a building where a large mass of people are coming in and out of it. It is after all a center of learning and not a military base.

It's a politically-sensitive public event in a building which is a major [and symbolic] target in a city which is in-itself a major and symbolic target. You don't have to be 'a military base' to be wise to the previous and put in security procedures etc.

Okay, Nicole is a paranoid security type [in some ways she's a non-shifting Ratkin Warrior] but even from my OOC view I'm getting more than a bit of 'Pearl Harbour the day before the Japanese attacked' vibe on Horizon right now [ie hubris, complacency and defences which are more spit/polish than actually effective].

You're not entirely wrong here, a bit piece of the puzzle is that people in Concordia, by and large, don't expect a direct assault like that to be even possible without ample advance warning, as one would see from a few battlecruisers or equivalent craft approaching on an attack vector. It is supposed to be impossible to slip past the wards of the city - at least in the public consciousness - even if a few powerful individuals have found back doors and ways to circumvent the wards...

I disagree with the Pearl Harbor comparison, though; that was a military target... Concordia feels a lot more like New York City on September 10th, 2001...

And after tomorrow, Concordia's liable to see its own TSA-style security theatre, as well...

Okay, what about 'Oslo, 8th April 1940'? I mean, who could visualise what the Germans and Quisling were gonna do the next day? Didn't that start off with ships trying to bluff past a series of coastal batteries?

Nicole suspects the 'Horizon defences/plans' are similar to the 'Millennium Challenge' in RL - aka drawn up to fight the kind of war you'd like to fight [ie you could win it]. Oddly enough, enemies normally aren't so nice to blindly follow your plans...

Horizon are thought to be mostly safe. It is like in Norway, yeah there will be security for big events but it is not a military regime, the even can not be shut down in 30 seconds. The thing is most on Horizon do not think the enemy can get there, not though the defenses, the wards and as such security for a conference will not be air tight.

You do know that you can increase security etc without 'becoming a military', right? It's just that it's like your default answer to any IC/OOC suggestion to upping defences etc. And Sleeper buildings like secure labs, parliament buildings etc can be 'locked down in thirty seconds'.

I personally think this is down to our own OOC experiences. I'm not just British, but have also long experience of London [always a major terrorist target] which I suspect makes me a lot more aware of the risks etc. I suspect a RL American living in say, New York would be even more wary.

They have defenses, they can not cut off a crowd and close down a huge public building in five seconds flat, sorry no. I can not remember any terrorist attack there they have been able to completely close down a huge venue in seconds. After a while, yes just but it takes some time. Especially since you do not just want to leave civilians in danger outside of the building. Sometimes when you are not the GM you will just have to accept that the one who GM have another view of the world and setting than you and perhaps not argue every single little thing that might show up in game that you would have done different if you was behind the screen.