[Poll] Large Scale Null - Rewrite of IC_Event Post

[Voxumo]

If we are to null/rewrite the ic_event post, instead of stating an actual reason why she lost the title, I'd rather see it somewhat glossed over or downright not even stated versus some excuse that plays in the favor, such as someone who suggested she was kidnapped or that she barely managed to escape the colony with her family.

I'd rather have an ambiguous reasoning than a precise one, since ambiguity could help foster multiple avenues of rp. I mean right now the only possibly damning phrase in the event post is "The March of Jaridan has revolted due to a lack of oversight." while oversight can mean alot, something like this is ambiguous, Was it oversight on the courts end, the noble's end, the marches end? Who knows?

[Annalesa]

Voxy,

There is no ambiguity about what that note meant. The March was directly under her supervision as the appointed Crown official, and the stated consequences are that she has been removed, which is a severe, unrealistic thing to do unless the blame falls on her.

The plain understanding of it is that she was removed and it was due to her lack of oversight that the March failed as the note stands, and it is how the common understanding of it will be.

You are trying to argue for an existing ambiguity that reasonably simply is not there. I also feel that it is a bit unreasonable to say that somebody being the victim of a mage attack or a kidnapping could be ICly -favorable-, especially when she is still going to lack the nobility and the likely outcome is going to be people questioning why her security was so lax.

I am not saying that we should go with these stories, I am simply spitballing viable alternatives to an extreme narrative that makes it unreasonably difficult for the player to continue on in her story and actively prescribes her a whole host of adverse circumstances ICly that she didn't sign up for or have any part in creating.

[Voxumo]

You are trying to argue for an existing ambiguity that reasonably simply is not there. I also feel that it is a bit unreasonable to say that somebody being the victim of a mage attack or a kidnapping could be ICly -favorable-, especially when she is still going to lack the nobility and the likely outcome is going to be people questioning why her security was so lax.

It's favorable because it removes any doubt that the cause of the dissolving of the March was due to the one in charge of it. Thus it kills off the "Negative" rp that could have surfaced. Afterall no one wants to be that person who tries to find fault in the victim. An ambiguous reason leaves room open to both sides, sides debating whether it was the fault of the one in charge, and the otherside who accepts that perhaps it was beyond their control. Both sides have equal footing to support their theories, and the reasoning doesn't stand to support either side, meaning it's harder to shutdown either side of the resulting rp.

And my mistake about the oversight comment, I failed to notice the "Lack of Oversight" and I was reading it as "Due to an oversight". So yeah that was my bad and I can see where there isn't much room for interpretation on that. This was actually where my comment about RP being nulled due to the changed Event Post came from in the other thread, as I've been reading it wrong since then, and I could have sworn the original event post was something different, but turns out it actually hasn't been changed. So yeah big misunderstanding on my part as I was reading it wrong.

[Kinaed]

Ahem, regardless of individual feelings on the matter, the pbase as a whole has spoken on this issue. I have resolved the player request by nulling the original post and posting the new message requested by the original poster.

[Voxumo]

*Reads new version* Uh... at least its neutral and vague enough to still support multiple avenues of rp.

[Dice]

I think this change is a very good one. Kudos to the staff and Emma both for the willingness to re-examine this one.

[Andruid]

I'm glad this was resolved the way it was. I, too, remember reading the initial IC Events post and thinking it was pretty unnecessarily shaming/punitive for a removal that was ostensibly due to inactivity.