The Mess (General OOC)   Posted by Cap'n Rae.Group: 0
Mariusz Tokarski
 player, 1226 posts
 Teenaged Partisan
 mark 101
Fri 10 Jul 2015
at 21:13
Re: Deal or No Deal?
I'd say go with this.

If anyone is worried about the 40mmS, Mariusz has 10 HE and Griet has 15 in their supplies. Mariusz also has a HK-79 that could be used and there's an M203 in stores so the 40mm Western would be really useful in my opinion.

Griet will take some in brown and Mariusz in camo please.
Robert 'Tuck' Tucker
 player, 1687 posts
 P Sgt., 10th MD
 Corkman
Fri 10 Jul 2015
at 21:22
Re: Deal or No Deal?
In reply to Mariusz Tokarski (msg # 163):

I say keep the G-11 if they don't want it, maybe someone  else will want it down the line or we use it when we need it.

Tucker will take a set of browns and camo winter clothing sets to go along with his great coat.  Tucker still has some 40 mm grenades left still and some 5.56 ammo for his M-16A2/M-203 combo.  He would ask for only a handful of 7.62N rounds for his M-14K.

Otherwise I say make the deal.
Craig Sutherland
 player, 727 posts
 Lt., 42 Cdo, RMC
 Cymon
Fri 10 Jul 2015
at 21:27
Re: Deal or No Deal?
In reply to Cap'n Rae (msg # 162):

Did Craig have any luck with the mounts for the KPV's ? He will ask the general if nothing comes up in the village or from the other Russians.

Cymon.
Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Kane
 player, 28 posts
 Lt. Cmdr., USN
 keys138
Fri 10 Jul 2015
at 21:29
Re: Deal or No Deal?
I'll throw a set of Russian winter fatigues in the pack.  In camo.  It's what all the fashionable DIA agents are wearing these days.
Jelena Tamm
 player, 33 posts
 Red Army Deserter
 Silent Hunter
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 13:41
Re: Moving On
In reply to Anders Mattson (msg # 158):

Go for it!
Cap'n Rae
 GM, 3046 posts
 Tour Director
 Narrator
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 16:04
The Airing of Grievances

Hello, everyone.

Integration of the new group has not gone very smoothly and there's quite a bit of frustration all around. This frustration has built up to the point where some players, and myself, are not enjoying this game. That's a big problem.

I spend about as much of my GM'ing time here reading and responding to PMs than I do reading and writing IC and turn posts (and I hope you know how much time I put into writing up the turn posts). Most of those PMs have been about the dysfunctional relationship between the old players and PCs and the "new kids".

I have tried to run damage control behind the scenes but I fear that my clumsy efforts have only made matters worse. I can only answer for myself, so I think it's time that the dissatisfied parties air their grievances directly.





This needs to happen publicly for a couple of reasons. Firstly, earlier player attempts to work things out amongst themselves via PM have gone nowhere. I don't know why, but a lack of engagement seems to be a big reason. Second, since all of us are affected by this inter-player/inter-PC tension, all of us have a right to know what's causing it, and deserves a voice in trying to resolve it. Inter-player tension killed this game the first time I shut it down, but several of you probably didn't know that (or you don't know any of the particulars). I make the GAME OVER announcement, though, so I look like the jerk/flake/coward etc. I'm not willing to take the fall again should this game go down in flames (again). There needs to be accountability here, for everyone.

I hope that we can engage in this discussion like the thoughtful, mature, respectful adults that we are. This would be a lot easier if this were a FtF group. There's something about distance and the written word that makes PbP a much more challenging medium. Being able to close a computer window and ignore one another doesn't help either. The following graphic is meant to inject a little levity into this situation, but there's some wisdom in it as well. I think that it's also applicable to PbP.





Besides inter-party dynamics issues, there are a couple of other issues that we need to discuss. I'm going to post the most salient posting guidelines here, but please go back and read through all of them. You all agree to abide by these guidelines when you signed on. If you are unable or unwilling to follow them consistently, you're doing us all a disservice by continuing your lackluster participation.

Cap'n Rae:
Raellus' PbP Guidelines


Post Rate

Typically, I'd like us to shoot for three turn posts per [seven day] week, standard. I want a quick moving game that involves frequent opportunities for character development and interaction, problem solving and teamwork, and, of course, combat.

For any PbP game to really work well, it's important that all of the players show initiative on a regular basis. This doesn't just mean posting once per turn. This means being active in seeking situations out, participating in planning and decision making, and interacting with other PCs, rather than simply reacting to GM input.

Missed Posts

If you are unable to make a post now and again, that is fine; I will NPC your character for that turn, if needed. If you will be unable to post for any length of time, please let me know in advance and Iíll be happy to fill in for you in your absence. If you miss several posts with no forewarning, your character will be walked off-stage (or overboard).

Posting Style

2. I know it's hard to come up with thrilling narrative or snappy dialogue every turn, but please try and make longer posts of good descriptions of your PC's actions for a few reasons. Firstly, they get me really enthused to write the back-story for you. Secondly, they add so much to the game. Thirdly, fifteen separate posts of "yes", "no", and "maybe" tends to 'spam-out' people in different time zones; they get up and there's a hundred posts of drivel that they can hardly inject themselves into. It also is amazingly confusing to GM. And boring to read.

IC Posting Ettiquette

1. Players MUST always answer other players, even if it's to only post "I ignore John." (If this isn't instituted, some players aren't answered and are stuck waiting for a response, missing turns and slowing everything down, sometimes this turns into the dreaded 'talking to the air' where players address the air rather than be held up. It looks really odd when twenty guys do it.)



Just remember that there are complex human beings on the other side of your screen. I'm a big believer in the Golden Rule. Let's all try to follow it.

And discuss...

-

This message was last edited by the GM at 16:13, Sat 11 July 2015.

Robert 'Tuck' Tucker
 player, 1689 posts
 P Sgt., 10th MD
 Corkman
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 16:23
Re: The Airing of Grievances
I'll start I suppose.  Being one of the few people in this game since it started Day One that are still around, we have seen a lot of players and characters come & go.  Some of them very good, others, not so good.  I think a big problem is that the new players are Special Ops types, which for the group on the tug, was or has been a very sore subject to us all.  A lot of those types of characters tried to shaft us or almost get the group killed over stupid shit thinking they were following some kind of ultimate directive or Op order (i.e. Reset).

Problem isn't with the players that I've see, it's just that they happened to pick a career that's been a thorn in the tugs side for awhile.  IMO, the players are doing a great job playing their people by being a little stand-offish because they are on top of the food chain (thinking there's still a war to win and their going to make a difference) and look down on the rest of us as deserters by doing what we're doing or how we've done it.

The general mentioned there's an evacuation of American forces going on at Bremerhaven...
Anders Mattson
 player, 148 posts
 Kapteeniluutnantti
 mediiic
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 16:37
Re: The Airing of Grievances
I, for one, do apologize my lack of activity which is mostly due to the fact, I work nights only until mid-August and have been doing some heavy work on our back yard. I apologize, if I have accidentally ignored anyone - it is not intentional. I just happen to be the father of two under two-year-old kids, so my attention span can be compared to a squirrel on chrystal meth.

I, for one, have no problems with the new players or characters and that goes also for Anders. The Finn considers the Soviets his primary enemy and anyone fighting them a potential ally. Of course, the current operation can be justified as undermining the Soviet Central Command by depleting its troops without potentially killing too many of them.

I do understand the problem of having multiple command level characters in the same group. It could be a great opportunity for roleplay, but so far I have steered Anders clear from it for two reasons: 1) my current schedule, which would seriously impede playing such a centric character and 2) not wanting to rock the boat too much - and besides, Anders has no legitimate claim for command position, not being a Nato combatant.

Because I enjoy this game very much, I request that all the parties try to discuss their creative and other differences in a constructive manner and, if necessary, offer to mediate the matters.

/O
Griet Niewiadomska
 player, 882 posts
 CPO, Polish Navy
 mark101
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 17:24
Re: The Airing of Grievances
If Griet making the decisions she has without adequate consultation has made this problem, then I apologise. I know that Rae likes to keep to the posting schedule and that as a central commander in the game I have to post early in order for others to comment or act upon those decisions. In Fuse's game that has worked because of many PMs between the various group commanders. Here, this seems to be more of an issue and the RP nature McCarthy and Griet are very different.
However, Grit is committed to getting the Americans back to Germany an if people want to focus on the journey there that is fine.
If thy don't want to paly the fight between the two Generals that is also fine, we can kill the Russians on board and present the General's head to his enemies then go on.
If people really don't like the way Griet is running things se can be retired, if there's a block to the smooth running of the game coming from me I will remove it.
I have loved helping to create the story of this game and I'm grateful to Rae for giving me that opportunity: the story and having fun is the most important thing, getting my own way isn't.
There is however a need to make decisions rapidly and given the turn-around or the game grinds to a halt. I have experienced this in other games and part of the way I post reflects that experience. If someone else is willing to do the heavy lifting of command I'm happy to transition to the background like I did in Rae's other game.
Please not, I am not getting at any other player. I'm happy to work with you all and get over any difficulties I've caused but if I'm the problem here, I'm an easy one to solve.
Also, to the older players, this is not me falling on my sword looking for support or sympathy. I don't feel forced or pressured into doing this nor is it a veiled plea to e talked out of it. I don't want this to become an argument.
To e new players: even if you haven]t considered me a problem but think that having Griet out of the way would make things smoother the offer is still there.
Eric Phillips
 player, 25 posts
 Spartan-117
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 18:01
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Yeah, it's my character's MOS that's the problem.  <rolleyes>  That's why he's roaming around on the deck with an empty rifle and has to have an escort to the toilet while a Soviet General, his two staff Officers, and four BEST soldiers are, from what I can tell, armed, roaming the ship at will, and being given the Captain's cabin.

I'm sorry you guys have been fuxored by other players.  I really am.  But the verisimilitude and meta problems with just the above issue are a-fucking-mazing to me and not in the good way.

Oh, you're an NPC medic - let's arm you.  Oh, you are a PC - here's the armory - you can look but you can't touch.

Maybe Rae can just NPC everyone you'll ever need or meet.  Maybe in a few years there be three or four of you left in the game.  Rae + 2/3 plus 5000 NPCs.  Because by then the history here will be so epic that no player will stand a chance of being able to join successfully.  I mean, you guys can't get over shit from what, two years ago when the game was shut down?

This is the invitation I got to join this game.  I'm running the first motherfucking suggestion Rae provided for acceptable PCs this campaign:

Your prospective PCs could be Green Berets or other SOF (or true Polish FC patriots, or whatever) that were attached to the 2nd PFL as trainers, liaisons, specialists, etc. but have left the unit as Anders becomes more ambitious and despotic.

There seems to be a huge disconnect between what the GAME MASTER is telling people will work, and what you the players think will work.  Maybe you as the players and Rae as the ref have some shit to work out.

Just do it without me.  Thanks.

Raellus:
You guys are the best. It's hard to imagine what GM'ing was like before y'all joined team Raellus. I don't want to. So, thanks. I really mean it.

As you might have heard, I'm fixing to fire up Twilight Cruise, my Pirates of the Vistula/Ruins of Warsaw/to the Baltic campaign, and I want- no, need- you guys to join me. I know that you're involved in a lot of PbP's ATM, maybe too many, but I don't want to do this without you. Some of the utility players have signed up already, but I need All Stars- you guys- to make this worthwhile.

Think about it. If you're overcommitted, I understand. I'll be super disappointed, but I'll understand. If you're interested, I can add you all as a batch job or piecemeal, whichever you prefer.

One possible intro hook is that the tug will soon be passing through territory where the 2nd Polish Free Legion. Here's what Going Home has to say about them:

Polish 2nd Free Legion: 150 men (Formerly Polish 10 BGB): Major Anders is proceeding with his secret dream to carve out a feudal kingdom in west central Poland. The 2nd PFL now has about 150 fairly well-equipped regulars (although they are short of support weapons) and another 100 or so less well armed civilian guerrillas. In addition, Anders has persuaded the commander of the Polish 4 Border Guard Brigade (now occupying Dabrowka) to join forces with him, and has agents working to conclude a similar takeover of the Polish 12th Cavalry Division.

Sounds like a wannabe warlord. Your prospective PCs could be Green Berets or other SOF (or true Polish FC patriots, or whatever) that were attached to the 2nd PFL as trainers, liaisons, specialists, etc. but have left the unit as Anders becomes more ambitious and despotic. This is just a suggestion so if you'd rather go with a different backstory (USMC TF Inchon escapees from Elblag, perhaps), that's fine too. I just want you on board.

Here's the link to the game:

Link back to this game

Let me know if you have any questions. Feel free to discuss this amongst yourselves. I'll be around.

-

This message was last edited by the player at 18:24, Sat 11 July 2015.

Griet Niewiadomska
 player, 883 posts
 CPO, Polish Navy
 mark101
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 18:08
Re: The Airing of Grievances
I am very sorry you feel that way.
Mark Scully
 player, 36 posts
 E7, USN SEALs
 Dave Ross
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 18:20
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Mark, from my point of view there certainly hasn't been the level of involvement in decision making that I expect but the problem isn't Griet. Actually, I haven't had any involvement in decision making. You and Andy both know how involved in that I am in Fusilier's game. On an OOC level I expect a similar level of involvement in this game when decisions are to be made. I am a player, I am a stakeholder in this game. I also accept that there are those who are quite happy to let others do the planning for them, but I'm not one of them.

I tried to involve myself in the latest round of planning only to wake up the next morning to find out that the decision had already been made unilaterally (by Bayer, not Griet) to go with Griet's plan (which I think has a multitude of flaws). I accept your point about the need to keep momentum, however in my opinion momentum could have been maintained quite easily by Bayer posting that we could discuss options back on the boat or similar. That would also have given those of us who might want to be involved IC but couldn't do so because they'd tried to inject a bit of realism into the proceedings which meant their character wasn't at the free lunch - i.e Scully - to get involved.

So I have no issue with Griet. But that I'm afraid is one of the largest parts of the problem Mark is that since we boarded the boat on 15 June I do not believe Bayer has made a single post that acknowledges that the USN party even exist, far less engage with any of us directly. Here's an example - after the fight ashore Kane spoke directly to him (msg 243)

Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Kane:
Lizzie readjusts her clothes to conceal the radio as much as possible, then moseys over to Konrad, still buzzing slightly from the fight.  She gives the man a quick update on her deployment of resources before asking the obvious question: "So if a Russian wants to deal, we deal?"

This was his reply (msg 254)

Konrad Bayer:
Bayer climbs off the man he'd pinned to the ground and takes a step back, finding himself being aided by Tucker - to which he nods his thanks. It was at that moment his radio crackled with Griet's voice. Then toggling the transmit switch he replies, "King, roger... back soon. Out."

"Is everyone ok?" he asked aloud, taking a step back from the Russians and back to his own people. Busted lips and sore muscles was one thing, broken bones another. Bayer then glances at his watch, noting the time, and briefly estimates whether they was still time to continue. Probably not.

"We're heading back." he announces. Then just to be sure nobody thought it had anything to do with the scrap, he adds, "We're out of time."

There is no acknowledgement of Kane or response to her question in his reply whatsoever.

To be fair, Fusilier isn't the only one ignoring us. But he is the nominal ic leader of Konrad's Kommandos, and it makes it very difficult for me to feel that the majority of you guys want us in this game when the group's leader is ignoring the fact that we exist. And can we please stop using "it's because you're playing NATO Special Forces types" as an excuse? This has become as much an ooc issue as it has an ic one and that excuse doesn't wash ooc.

If anyone wants to reread the previous posts - which is what I've just done - and find me a post where Fusilier has explicitly spoken to any of us after Sunday 14 June I'd be grateful if they could point it out to me.

So yeah. I'm afraid right now it feels like the majority of you would rather we weren't here.
Griet Niewiadomska
 player, 884 posts
 CPO, Polish Navy
 mark101
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 18:31
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Thank you for your input. I think part of the problem with the last of the decisions was that I gave Rae a post to use if the deadline for the post hit and then we had a fast forward where people didn't get a chance to contribute. In essence I failed to either play for time or allow a get out where we could change the decision if people disagreed. I thought I had done that in what I said but obviously failed miserably.
I didn't expect the General to jump wholeheartedly on the option and also expected time whilst the tug was being repaired to discuss things properly and come up with a mutually agreed plan.
I think the best option will be for Griet to become an NPC that will leave the decision making more open. I can't speak for Fuse and won't put words in his mouth either.
Again, I am sorry if I have been precious about he game, it was never my intention but that is obviously what has happened. It was always my intention to get the new characters to b armed properly as soon as I could but again, I made a major error by not saying that immediately that we got back on the river when I posted last. No doing so was very remiss of me.
Mark Scully
 player, 37 posts
 E7, USN SEALs
 Dave Ross
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 18:40
Re: The Airing of Grievances
The most recent decision was only an example. As I said, since I joined this game I have not had the opportunity to get involved in any sort of decision making. When there was a discussion about carrying out a recce of the market square I was told I would have to run my plan through Bayer. There's a post from Tucker where he looks to Bayer for permission to speak. It appears that Bayer runs this show and there seems to be an expectation in this game that lower ranked pc's will simply do as they are told. I don't want to play in the sort of T2K game where all I can do is say "Yes, Sir, which seat should I take in the vehicle, Sir?" And when the guy who runs the show doesn't acknowledge that I even exist that's a problem for me.

So I repeat, I have no issue with Griet. Whether you continue to play her or you and Rae agree to move her to NPC status is absolutely nothing to do with this problem and wont do anything to resolve it.
Anders Mattson
 player, 149 posts
 Kapteeniluutnantti
 mediiic
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 18:42
Re: The Airing of Grievances
I need to raise the point of realism. You run in to a team of people, who say they are Nato SOF, look like them, sound like them and all that jazz. They claim to be still fighting the war you have already somewhat forsaken. All they have as proof is their word on who they are and you have no possibility of checking whether they are whom they claim to be. Would you trust them fully, or take precautions?

Having been the same situation in a different game (I was an Imperial Officer, who defected to a Rebel-aligned strike team), I know being scrutinized can grow old pretty soon, but I still do ask you to roleplay the thing out. I am pretty sure, none of the old players is looking to be difficult with you as players, but are simply playing their characters, characters that are trying to get by in a world gone to hell.

As for Griet, I've never had a problem with her. She is the best suited character for commanding the Queen by background, possibly followed by Anders, who is a naval officer and a professional sailor.

So, this boils down to one piece of advice, if you allow me. Give it some time. A good leader must know how to be a good subordinate as well. Once this first operation is over and done with, it is more than likely, you will be let in with full priviledges. Doing that right away would, in my most sincere opinion, be poor roleplaying. Even if one is not included in all decission making, and in a military or paramilitary unit with proper command hierarchy one rarely is, it doesn't mean they would not be contributing to the story or were simply secondary characters.
Eric Phillips
 player, 26 posts
 Spartan-117
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 18:45
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Anders Mattson:
I need to raise the point of realism. You run in to a team of people, who say they are Nato SOF, look like them, sound like them and all that jazz. They claim to be still fighting the war you have already somewhat forsaken. All they have as proof is their word on who they are and you have no possibility of checking whether they are whom they claim to be. Would you trust them fully, or take precautions?


I'd take precautions against the Soviet General, his two officers, and four elite troops who are now aboard the ship.  That's who I'd take precautions against.  But you guy's aren't climbing all over yourselves to do that, now are you?

This message was last edited by the player at 18:46, Sat 11 July 2015.

Mark Scully
 player, 38 posts
 E7, USN SEALs
 Dave Ross
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 18:48
Re: The Airing of Grievances
I'm afraid you've missed several points.

Anders Mattson:
I need to raise the point of realism. You run in to a team of people, who say they are Nato SOF, look like them, sound like them and all that jazz. They claim to be still fighting the war you have already somewhat forsaken. All they have as proof is their word on who they are and you have no possibility of checking whether they are whom they claim to be. Would you trust them fully, or take precautions?

Yes, precautions were taken.

No such precautions were taken re: the Russian group you have just embarked or your new medic who you have never met before.

Anders Mattson:
So, this boils down to one piece of advice, if you allow me. Give it some time. A good leader must know how to be a good subordinate as well. Once this first operation is over and done with, it is more than likely, you will be let in with full priviledges. Doing that right away would, in my most sincere opinion, be poor roleplaying. Even if one is not included in all decission making, and in a military or paramilitary unit with proper command hierarchy one rarely is, it doesn't mean they would not be contributing to the story or were simply secondary characters.

I am referring to ooc decision making, not ic. That is me, the player, being actively involved in the game I am playing in. This is nothing to do with the ic military hierarchy.
Griet Niewiadomska
 player, 885 posts
 CPO, Polish Navy
 mark101
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 18:58
Re: The Airing of Grievances
I would agree that the point isn't realism here, it is not allowing people the say they want in the game. The realisation of which is really upsetting me because I think they are right.
It was my intention that before we headed off we'd b able to give everyone more control and get the empty guns/escort problem ironed out. That didn't happen and I apologise for that. I got caught up in telling a story not playing a co-operative game.
That will not happen again. Arguing the semantics of story will not help. What will help is that some of us have been inhospitable as players, not as characters and that can't happen. How we go on, I'm not sure but arguing if someone is right or wrong won't help. There will be no winners only losers.
Whether we think it is right or not doesn't matter: if one player's perception is different to ours then it is a problem we all need to sort out. We need to slow the pace of things down here and let everyone have the input they want.
That may well lead to a slowing of the pace of the game but unless everyone is happy then there is no game.
Robert 'Tuck' Tucker
 player, 1690 posts
 P Sgt., 10th MD
 Corkman
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 19:23
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Mark Scully:
The most recent decision was only an example. As I said, since I joined this game I have not had the opportunity to get involved in any sort of decision making. When there was a discussion about carrying out a recce of the market square I was told I would have to run my plan through Bayer. There's a post from Tucker where he looks to Bayer for permission to speak. It appears that Bayer runs this show and there seems to be an expectation in this game that lower ranked pc's will simply do as they are told. I don't want to play in the sort of T2K game where all I can do is say "Yes, Sir, which seat should I take in the vehicle, Sir?" And when the guy who runs the show doesn't acknowledge that I even exist that's a problem for me.

That is the way Tucker has been played since day one.  I'm sorry if that concerns you but, that works for me for this character.  He looks at it as a matter of respect too.  Tucker has been afforded many times to express what are his opinions, as well as other team/crew members, on a plan or an idea.  With the tension of the situation, we aren't there yet BUT, we need to get there soon!

We need to work this out or we might just as well call it quits.  WE need to work out with the group we just picked up (Scully, Phillips (if he's still going to play), Lizzie, & Ana) first and then, terms with the Russians.  We shouldn't have fellow FRIENDLIES with more restrictions than the PACT troops.
Griet Niewiadomska
 player, 886 posts
 CPO, Polish Navy
 mark101
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 19:26
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Absolutely, the Russians are on board and armed, every one needs to be. I just wish I'd said it as soon as the turn moved on.
Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Kane
 player, 29 posts
 Lt. Cmdr., USN
 keys138
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 19:41
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Branching two existing parties is never going to be easy.  There is the new group coming in versus the old group, and while there is cross-over familiarity between some of the players, several of us have little to no relationship.  And I can certainly accept that people are possessive of the story they have crafted through years of effort together.

I am certainly willing to shoulder some responsibility, I built a command level character that maybe I haven't been playing forceful enough to get us a seat at the table, but I was hoping, as I think everybody probably was, that we would get there organically.  There still remain bugs to work out on that score.  And I will admit, we are playing characters that have ties to the still existing power structures of the world.  And they are following orders with an agenda that has not been revealed yet.  What I'm trying to do is respect the spirit of reality while metagaming enough that we can all enjoy the story.

Several existing PCs have made overtures to our new PCs and those have been appreciated. As Dave as has said, there were several conversation branches offered on our part to get a seat at the decision making table and most were ignored.  I probably could have been more proactive in having Lizzie sit down with (for example) Tucker and shoot the shit, but I figured she would be more inclined to speak with Griet and Konrad.  Tried that and had some success with Griet (and Mark, thank you for the effort).  I would echo (again) what has already been said and agree that Griet as a PC is fine, for me.  The Captain of the vessel should have a PC seat at the table.

This is a large group of players with some fundamental differences in playing and writing style.  Without passing judgement or declaring bad/wrong fun, that is going to cause friction.  Momentum is important, but not at the expense of enjoyment.  If people want a seat at the decision table, that needs to be provided for whether their PC would have a say or not.  Lizzie can parrot someone else's awesome ideas just fine.  As a player I want agency in the story.  There are times that the CO can shoot orders and the rest of us will adapt (say for instance, combat), but looking for guidance at every turn wears on me quickly. Especially when the guidance is late and/or minimal or just ignores the questions/suggestion I bring up ("hey we need more brains on this play, let's say yes and we'll get everyone back together to brainstorm up a good plan").

Patience is important, yes.  But this has been dragging out in real life for weeks and it needs to get resolved.  Hopefully this conversation can address that. To role-play the subordinate position, I have to have a superior position to play subordinate to.  If I wanted to play in a totally realistic para-military hierarchy, I would just go to work.  We are here to create stories, together, that hopefully we all will enjoy.  Our grip on totally accurate representation may have to loosen a little and I have probably been as guilty of that as anyone.

That was long and rambling.  Let me finish by saying I don't think we have bad people here, just different styles and expectations.  Hopefully we can find some way to mesh them and move forward.
Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Kane
 player, 30 posts
 Lt. Cmdr., USN
 keys138
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 19:45
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Robert 'Tuck' Tucker:
That is the way Tucker has been played since day one.  I'm sorry if that concerns you but, that works for me for this character.  He looks at it as a matter of respect too.  Tucker has been afforded many times to express what are his opinions, as well as other team/crew members, on a plan or an idea.


Ah, that makes more sense to me then.

I'm asking here, no sarcasm intended, is it possible to write those into a post?  Is that the style that has been agreed upon?  For instance, could I write, "Lizzie looks at Konrad, and receiving his nod, continues with her line of questioning?" or would that be overstepping?
Anders Mattson
 player, 150 posts
 Kapteeniluutnantti
 mediiic
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 19:46
Re: The Airing of Grievances
I do see your points, there. Having slept about two hours after the night shift ended 15 hours ago does not really help with logic.

Now, since we're airing out matters, I do feel at times nobody actually reads some of my posts in the OOC, or if they do, it is not acknowledged. Okay, they may be a bit borish, but I can stand with you guys telling me to shut up rather than ignoring me. ;^)

Anyway, the Russians are outnumbered and we're working for their causes, which gives them little reason to kick us in to the teeth as long as we're doing their bidding. It isn't absolute insurance against them doing so regardless, but it is better than nothing. Now that they are aboard, it is far more difficult to disarm them - it should have been done right when they stepped on board.
Mark Scully
 player, 39 posts
 E7, USN SEALs
 Dave Ross
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 19:57
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Kane:
I'm asking here, no sarcasm intended, is it possible to write those into a post?  Is that the style that has been agreed upon?  For instance, could I write, "Lizzie looks at Konrad, and receiving his nod, continues with her line of questioning?" or would that be overstepping?

Why would you feel the need to seek approval? I'd simply post "Lizzie continues her line of questioning."

This message was last edited by the player at 19:57, Sat 11 July 2015.

Griet Niewiadomska
 player, 887 posts
 CPO, Polish Navy
 mark101
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 19:59
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Hopefully we can come to some better conclusions this time. There is a major planning session coming down the line and all options are still open, we can still double cross the Russians or anything else suggested.

I'm going to go to bed now so don't think I'm ignoring anyone. I'll be back on again in about 12 hours.