Although I voted no, as I don't like the idea of major positions run by another affiliation the case you mention, highstar, doesn't fall into that.

Being IND i'd expect it to benift other IND players, although there is always the argument that IND's shouldn't be considered an affilation but more the lack of an affilation. (in which case you shouldn't be able to declare war on them or ally with them as a group either)

I have no problems with players taking over a EEM/KAS etc position if, and only if, they are in the special case of 'starting up' that affilation. For example the FEL would have been given the area of space they started in and probably associated starbases, and i assume the FLZ the same even if both want the same space . And of course my affilation was given sargasso although our colonies where moved from solo rather than seeded there i think.

Players don't start in these affs. They are (or always were, maybe that's changed as well) GM affs.

In which case i don't think it would ever be player run and as such the starbases shouldn't be either (as players couldn't be in the affilation)

In my views HighStar doesn't promote trade. It would be better if he has putten some BP's on the markets, because that is something that would be supporting everyone, including those in smaller affs or players without the possibility to run large number of research centers.

Also, I am not really sure how to see HighStar. Like someone else states, he acts like an Aff so it should be treated like an Affl... But IND aren't supposed to be an affl.

INDs are supposed to be independent people working for their own good.. and don't cooperate with other players (like they are an affl), but HighStar seems to be playing the role of the PD of an affl with his demands, which most of the time seems to be acting to pretend all INDs.

I don't care about an base being run by someone with more then one position but he should be able to play it neutral... basically the HighStar attitude against AFT and CIA is way over the board. And with his recent claims he seems to claim the entire Twinkle system as his own.

This I agree with and maybe sometimes I think he goes to far looking like running IRS, in fact it would be easier if he started an affilation for IRS with the mandate of protecting IND trade rights across the cluster.

This is disagree with, if someone crosses you, or you feel that they have crossed you then you should be allowed to respond as you feel the need.

I was under the impression it basicly was, or at least highstar is the most powerful base in the area, also i read something about the FEL leasing it but i have no idea whats that about.

How Tony runs HighStar is an issue...

All GM bases are run in the backgroup, only the KAS base has been active with fighting pirates lately... If the base was given to be able to interact with an huge base or foster trade then HighStar should do that... Selling BP's or modules sounds me something an huge base would do, why would Highstar also needs 270 research centers.. And the last whining emails about AFT undercurring him is something which is something that is expected from an Trader Affl. I wouldn't expect anything else from them.

Anyway, i try to ignore his ramblings as much as possible, which might be the smartest things to do.

Is he not VPD then, conducting much of the "negotiations"?

The thing with this specific situation is that Highstar and FLZ are on more or less opposite sides of the same aff-in-the-middle - FEL. Surely there is conflict of interests there?

doug you theif

Just wait luxemburg will rise again!
ermm.. or at last..

or something

hold on six allainces? hmm that impiles one more than the consortium (unless of course its the fgz)

Personally the only problem i have with two affilation things, regarding tony specifically, is that i have to roleplay a freindship with highstar against the hostile flz, would be easier if noone told me.

If he can keep the role apart then fair enough, if he can't you can always step in later. As to the IRS thing, i think he acts more like it's already IRS then IND

And it is a damn fine cattle shed too - all the mod cons.

MOH Floaty

Yup, the buck stops with me.

Just to quote myself

A decision was made, rightly or wrongly. I suggest we wait and see how it goes, I'm sure tony will do his best to keep the rolls apart. Personally i'd like to hear what the FEL have to say on it as, as someone rightly pointed out, they are in the middle of the two 'groups' (irs and flz).

If people still think theres too much conflict of intresst, well Tony has already said he'd step down so where is the problem?

I have no problem with Tony running Highstar as IND/IRS.It livens up things in the Cluster

But he or any other player should not be allowed to belong to another aff,and that includes being an IND and a member of another aff.
If Mica gave me the oportunity to run Hypso as an IND for example I would leave FET.

And no he hasn't offered and I wouldn't take it anyway.I'm FET through and through!!!

No matter how well intentioned the player is and no matter how good they are at role playing and keeping the two separate there will always be a certain air of resentment and suspision towards that player.

Wrong.

Bob Etherington took over KAS Rubis just as I left to set up the CLN with Søren Rasmussen. He might have been running KAS Rubis for a month but at that time I was already negotiating with Justin about the CLN because I had a "disagreement" with the leadership of the GTT over my support of the Imperials at the alien artefact. It seemed that the GTT leadership wanted to bash the tatras RIP base rather than preventing the CNF/DTR/CIA/BHD from gaining too much from the Artefact.

So why didnt I complain? My activity in the game at that point was almost zero. Why bother with anything GTT if I was going to leave any ways?

Gord

True as far as it goes, but Bob was the second one, not the first.

My recollection here was you needed GTT, and a few others to approve the takeover. That is not quite the same thing. We did not object, or approve, we agreed to abid by whatever views the population of Highstar cared to express. These views were never tested.

Portha Agiadai
PS can anyone tell, privetely, me how you get the spell checker to work on this?

Even when Mica knows about it, it is still secret to the majority of players.

So while Mica and a select few are aware of all these dual-players and therefore do not consider them cheating, the rest of us who do not know anything about it (and some of us who did not even imagine all this was going on) feel cheated. Not cheated in the sense of someone gaining some kind of advantage, cheated as in feeling as though we have been mislead or deceived.

That's a hard feeling to get rid of. It's hard when one player does it to you, it's even harder when it is "institutional" within the game.

I'm concerned that these KJC sanctioned cases dillute the seriousness of non-sanctioned cases. Most players seem to agree that it is wrong to play in two affs without the knowledge and approval of KJC but when such cases are discovered and raised with KJC nothing appears to be done about it. It seems that it doesn't matter if a player uses false names to play in two affs at the same time, as long as they weren't paying for the positions at the time. Or they didn't gain any advantage with it (but how can we judge that). Excuses. That's what happens when you allow some and not others, it dillutes the others.

I could accept these KJC santioned cases a lot more easily if I could see the exposed "underground" cases treated more seriously.

And if people don't know who they are, when they leak out it makes it all worse. Case in point - this thread and the even bigger threads behind it.

Its seems to be agreed that there will be problems with separation and trust once these positions are know isn't that enough of a warning light not to do it? Even if the players do nothing wrong they are demonised. Right or wrong they are seen as cheating. That seems to be the general opinon of players. It may not be written down but it's the expected protocol.

Maybe the cartakers should be allowed more leeway with their position on the condition that they are not in another aff? Isn't the very close scrutiny precisely because they are in two affs, and thus integrity/cross-over needs to be carefully monitored against?

So if there's no perceived advantage then it's okay? No harm done? What about lack of trust? I will now be extremely wary about new players who join our aff, even seeded ones. I will no longer actively recruit players as I could be just giving them an opportunity they were waiting for. To put it simply I have lost trust in other players. Until recently I gave it no thought and so it effected nothing. Now it's pretty much always in my mind.

I'm not so worried about IC consequences, it's only a game, but I am very concerned that I'm not talking to the person I think I am. A personal OOC betrayal rather an IC one. IC I can think of as many justifications for playing in two, three, seven affs as anyone else. OOC I can think of none.

If players don't want to play caretaker positions because of the restrictions, then it's a shame, but that's the way it is. We go back to cardboard cutouts as awful as it is. We shouldn't have the rules, implied or explicit, bent or ignored for it.

The laws that were imposed were done in-game, as a part of a long-winded multi-aff negotiation with Highstar at the centre of it.

At the Time, Tony Mac was only running Highstar - so this whole "dual aff" thing is absolutely irrelevant in that context.

In my opinion, Tony has played Highstar's mandate, as given to him by Mica and supervised by Mica right the way down the line

So far, I have spotted not a single change to the way Highstar is being run because of Tony's involvement in the FLZ, and knowing both Tony and Mica to some reasonable degree, nor do I expect there to be. Right now, you seem to be turning this into a personal attack on Tony, not a general criticism of the way that KJC is deciding to run the game... and that is sad to say the least. he has been involved at Highstar to help Mica bring colour to GM positions, and he is being crucified for it - so get upset with Mica if anybody, not Tony Mac.

Dan

Mica

The majority here believe that IND assets can be player run, history tells us that it adds a lot of welcomed spice to the game, so please do not prevent this from happening in the future.

The issue is players running 2 positions in the game. That seems to be the real hot potato.

Andy

To be clearer, the issue of contention is players running positions in 2 different affs, including IND (excluding PIR), at the same time.

It is not what I said. I said it was beneficial to one human faction and it wasn't the IMP block. For the same reason I told you way way back when you did the announcement. I pointed out to you that their only entry into the Cluster was through the gate ... I meant no more than that.

I do want you to continue running Highstar, but without the restrictions of the GM.


Gord

Yes, this is absolutely the point.
I have no complaints about Highstar or the KST or anything like that, and I think they are a great move foward. It's purely the playing-two-affs thing that I believe is wrong.