That… is one of the few posts I can wholeheartedly and with no ulterior motive agree with. I’m giving these boards a chance, but the rest of it hits home.
The IGS, Summit and such places have always been damn near hostile to talking about actual capsuleer business most of the time. Discussing the advantages and disadvantages of different super carriers, the politics of the wars we are in, the battles that frankly made the assassination of Jammies - from a military combat point of view - look like a spark next to a roaring fire…
Largely viewed as “not for us”. Something that somehow didn’t fit into how New Eden was supposed to be in the Summit or IGS.
A shame, because those are the places such things could conceivably be discussed in a decent fashion, without the grim specter of “lol insert whatever/whoever here sucks dude”.
I dunno, Miz. I think there’s nothing stopping those things from being discussed here except that the people who want to discuss them… don’t, for some reason. Like, Ayallah’s Nyx. Nobody’s stopping her from talking about it. Some people might think she’s being cocky or talking down to them? OH NO! They think that about her anyway.
You wanna talk about something, talk about it. And just ignore the idiots.
To anyone. To everyone. You won’t know who takes it seriously until you try. Until then, it’s all just you, saying ‘I wish I could talk about this stuff’, but choosing not to.
I sometimes forget you haven’t been around the IGS for very long. This isn’t something new and it isn’t like it hasn’t been tried many times before. You’ll spot the glass walls that were built around these places when you walk into them, I guess.
The walls only exist because you allow them to do so. Again: ignore the idiots. Right now, you’re making the choice to let them define what you do, what you say.
Might want to cut down on the cheesy self-help dime store psychology. The walls do exist because I allow them to. I am making the choice not to bother taking them down, because I know the wastelands that are beyond them. Seriously, we’ve been around the block a few times.
And do stop trying to say what I am doing when you repeatedly barely scratch the surface and either get it wrong or can’t figure out that there are reasons for how things are.
You know, when you start off by agreeing that two of the three sentences you’re replying to are correct, and then follow it up with saying I’m getting it wrong, it’s a pretty transparent bit of defensive evasion, Miz. That’s not ‘dime store psychology’ (and what the hel is a dime store?), it’s just an observation, much like the rest of it.
Sure, there are reasons. And those reasons were probably perfectly valid eight years ago. Are they still applicable now? Have you even tried to find out?
So to sum up.
“I don’t like new things”
“New things are horrible”
“People I don’t like will post things”
“People will post things I don’t like”
“I can’t talk about the things I want to because people might disagree with me”
Have I missed anything? Because I’m pretty sure all these objections stand for the old forum.
I would say the responsiblity for keeping the topics serious lies on our shoulders and not on the forum itself. And if some pilots feel the desire to make overly use of the new emojis they should be welcome to do that in relevant threads while keeping the serious discussions serious.
That’s all well and good, but there’s nothing to stop someone from entering a completely serious discussion (i.e. the threads detailing the lost Obelisks on the State border, or the purging of yet another of Nauplius’ giant heresy boxes) and contributing nothing of value but a few turtle emotes.
This is the nature of a free forum, for better or worse. Some people will enjoy it, some won’t. I really don’t mind.
It is scratching the surface and pretending you’ve struck some sort of deep vein, Arrendis. You’re touching a tail and describing it well, but haven’t a notion of what animal you’re describing. This isn’t evasion, it’s simply telling you that your assumptions are simply wrong, extrapolated from vastly insufficient knowledge on what you speak of.
You make the mistake of thinking you know more about the person you’re talking to than the person themselves.
Except I’m not claiming this is anything deep at all. I’m saying these are immediate observations, and nothing more. Maybe stop trying to make me into whatever it is you want to be arguing against, since you’ve already agreed with the specific observations?
