Hefestus Woodcock
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2025
- Messages
- 23
- Thread Author
- #1
As the District One event has come to a close, I've taken the liberty of drafting out a complaint document (with a focus on a player-led group) during its downtime. The work is split in two parts, with the first being an exposition on the nature of risk and to set some foundational concepts that may be used later; meanwhile, the later part will contain the actual complaint, wherein I will showcase a grouping of behaviour. A few words of note, the exposition is not something inherently unique, as all of us share an understanding of it, but it helps to make some terms explicit, and I want to lay some ideas that may turn into another, more comprehensive work (like a roleplay guide). Also, do not be wary of the lot of unique words or style that I use, as I simply enjoy practicing some creative liberty (and its always good to put in your best effort in anything you create), and I hope it might make the thread less of a slog to go through.
To begin explaining the thesis of the title, I will start with the question: what is an action? For our purposes, an action is an undertaking of a single character during the roleplay process, to achieve a certain wanted objective of that character. Herein, the successful completion of an action comes with a reward. More often than not, actions usually have a cost associated with them, which is either paid upfront as a prerequisite to taking said action; or, can be incurred in the form of a risk that is applied to the current, and sometimes other future actions. This exposition focuses on that risk and the responsibility of the player to be aware and accept it, whenever they direct their character to take an action.
A risk manifests in many different ways, throughout the course of the roleplay process. Usually, they come in the form of a counter-action being done against your character, or the unfolding of a branching path which does not favour them. These are the most direct means that a risk may manifest; however, there are cases wherein this manifestation is more insidious in nature. The counter-actions of other characters may not come in direct opposition to yours, and instead, may ferment into disillusionment and resentment. Conspiracies give rise; the respect of good manners is taken away, and people begin to 'notice' you more. Paranoia becomes an everlasting companion, and ignoring its presence will find your character into a corner they will not easily escape from. In the end, what I've described so far could be held up as a truism; although, this explicit definition serves us to easier understand the upcoming concept.
As described, risk comes directly as an opposition (or obstacle) towards our character either from the world itself — or the other participant players. Each scenic context in the roleplay process proposes to its participants a number of opportunities for action, and as we've stated prior, these actions have an associated cost in the form of a risk of unwanted happenstance. Here I shall coin the term 'Totality of Risk', the grouping of the risks of the all possible actions in the chosen scenic context. The importance of this definition becomes apparent when we observe the attempts of participants (whom we will claim as risk-averse), in trying to manipulate this totality: either through shifting the risk to another, or, in unique cases, the direct reduction of it.
It is important to understand the nature of such manipulations (or transformations), as being through either internal or external influences. The gold standard for such manipulations is that they stem from the actions of characters, affecting the totality in an organic manner. These internal influences, affect the community perception of the process, by enforcing a context-wide story-cohesion, which informs our perceived risk. Although, external means of influence are also available to us, usually in the form of GM decision, administrative action, or simple player-to-player coordination (more simply, OOC planning). In rare cases, these external means are more preferable than internal methods, as they can force participants to push through a slump, although carrying the risk of harming story-cohesion.
With this, my exposition can finally come to a close, and I can begin the real complaint. As noted in the entry paragraph, this complaint is aimed at specific group, being the Appache-Zoku, and their lead, Shin Okada (played by @ItsLiam). I believe that some of his actions and behaviour have caused harm to the community, i.e.: attempts to influence the totality through external means (although, unsuccessful), and the litigation of grievances with the event staff through improper channels of communication. Each of these actions, to my understanding, have harmed story-cohesion and unjustly undermined the trust of the community towards their event team.
To begin with some background, Appache-Zoku was one of the original gangs of District One when the event had began. My extent of knowledge on their doings is that they primarily engaged in commerce, and renting out property (business and housing alike). However, their plans of reigning control over the District began to seep through to the common eye, once the prize of a Combine Fabricator had been showcased by the Pit. Each gang could sign up a representative, and upon winning the fight, they could claim the spoils (being the Fabricator). Unluckily, their candidate lost the fight, which lead the Appache group to spring into action and try to strong-arm the victor gang into destroying the Fabricator. When such conflict arose, governor Milada (played by @Imperator RAD-X) had intervened to drive some resolution to the issue. In the end, after the ownership of the Fabricator was set to some other organisation for safe-keeping, Milada proposed holding elections for ministerial positions of District One. To note, the Appache had shown a keen interest towards the governor before-hand, and upon being granted the chance of taking a spot in governance, Okada took the immediate opportunity to cement himself as the Minister of Finance.
Long after, Appache-Zoku began being overt and explicit in their actions of entrenching power to their group. They tried to place their own members in other ministerial positions, and grant (untouchable) key employment spots through executive decrees; trying to circumvent a lawful election process by amending the rules of the race while it was in-progress; even trying to silence dissenting opinions through the usage of the Precinct, or strong-arming weaker gang-leads into taking action against their own. This entire conspiracy had come through organically, as actions were taken by player-led characters within the District, and no issue is to be found with it. However, we can find issue when we analyse future events, and begin forming a perception of incongruency between perceived risk and actual risk.
All the actions I've described so far are obvious plays of power, made to further their own group (the Appache), at the detriment of others. These actions ought to incur a large risk toward the indicted group, as such actions are bound to give rise to resentment. Moreover, there have been individuals, whom have tried to push against the will of the Appache-Zoku, by either acting as obstacles, or fan further flame of disillusionment with their group inside the District One populous. Yet, when I analyse the timeline of events that came before and after these power plays, I can hardly find any such risk of ever being present. Not only that, I've been witness to a bizarre belief espoused by @ItsLiam, that not only is his character in grand risk, but that the placement of that risk (upon Okada) is actually unjustified.
Herein lie my issues with the behaviour showcased by @ItsLiam: he claims that there is a band of people within the event staff, that have targeted the character of Okada for OOC reasons. All the harassment and obstacles, which have been mere vitriolic broadcasts by player-led characters against Okada, and an /event which indicted his character's actions as spurring up riots, have not happen through organic, story-cohesive actions; instead, they have been devised OOC'ly, to stop Okada from gaining any standing in the political system. Reading through these discussion, @ItsLiam has claimed bad-faith conduct, in-part from the staff leading the event — and in other parts, by the players themselves. These should obviously lead @ItsLiam in being proactive by either contacting the server directorate to elaborating his discontent with how the staff has been acting towards his character, or through a formal complaint post on the forums. Neither of these seem to have occurred, and I've only seen @ItsLiam litigate these issues in public chats, inside the Discord server (and multiple times at that).
Furthermore, it is hard to believe the claims that @ItsLiam makes about targeted harassment, as all such issues seem to have been reconciled in those same public litigations. Server directorate had explained to him that every happen-stance that he had found suspicious, had been mere coincidence. Its even harder to believe that his character had ever been in positions of risk, as during the afro-mentioned riot, he'd come out of it unharmed for the most part. In contrast, the two leaders of the militia, had been severely punished by the Precinct for the riot, wherein: one had came out maimed, while the another was hanged (although, this was due to the desires of the character's owner, rather than a decision of the precinct leads). Everyone was harmed from the aftermath of the riot, but Okada was the least harmed of all, even though the totality should disfavour him, and by his own word that people are calling for his head.
From here on, it should be easy to understand my grievances. From what has happened to Okada, I can only end up with an conflicting perception of the application of risk during the roleplay process. Overt actions of amassing control are not met with an equal measure of pushback, which ought lead me to believe that the totality of risk is actually much smaller in scale, or is shifted elsewhere. Yet, each action I've taken as my own character, has been anything but. This incongruity is shared by many of the members of the community too, as the story-cohesion seems to be fractured from external influences. And on the part of OOC meddling, the actions of @ItsLiam have been inappropriate, as his constant litigation of grievances through improper channels has given rise to community outrage towards the staff of Willard; of which, had believed they had already reconciled the issues prior, and had been quite proactive in granting goodwill toward @ItsLiam. Its very displeasing to see such behaviour on display, especially when the person has gotten way more goodwill by the staff than anyone else during this event, and yet they still continue to accuse said staff of bad-faithed conduct.
To conclude, I wish to impart a few thoughts to the community – and its presiding staff – on how they should conduct themselves in the future. First and foremost, you as the player are solely responsible for being aware and understanding the risks that come as a result of the actions that you direct your character towards. If you do not do so, you will find yourself participant in many-a-different complaint threads such as this one. Although, in the cases that you do believe wrong-doing has been committed (knowingly or not) towards you or your character, I implore you to litigate such issues through proper channels, so to not sow unnecessary outrage in people whom are not involved. As for the staff, those of you whom lead the great events that we participate in, do not be scared to hand down punishment, as an incoherent story and incongruous application of risk is way more harmful to the larger community. And for those in administrative positions, please be proactive in trying to reconcile issues that prop up in the community and set records straight for everyone else.
To begin explaining the thesis of the title, I will start with the question: what is an action? For our purposes, an action is an undertaking of a single character during the roleplay process, to achieve a certain wanted objective of that character. Herein, the successful completion of an action comes with a reward. More often than not, actions usually have a cost associated with them, which is either paid upfront as a prerequisite to taking said action; or, can be incurred in the form of a risk that is applied to the current, and sometimes other future actions. This exposition focuses on that risk and the responsibility of the player to be aware and accept it, whenever they direct their character to take an action.
A risk manifests in many different ways, throughout the course of the roleplay process. Usually, they come in the form of a counter-action being done against your character, or the unfolding of a branching path which does not favour them. These are the most direct means that a risk may manifest; however, there are cases wherein this manifestation is more insidious in nature. The counter-actions of other characters may not come in direct opposition to yours, and instead, may ferment into disillusionment and resentment. Conspiracies give rise; the respect of good manners is taken away, and people begin to 'notice' you more. Paranoia becomes an everlasting companion, and ignoring its presence will find your character into a corner they will not easily escape from. In the end, what I've described so far could be held up as a truism; although, this explicit definition serves us to easier understand the upcoming concept.
As described, risk comes directly as an opposition (or obstacle) towards our character either from the world itself — or the other participant players. Each scenic context in the roleplay process proposes to its participants a number of opportunities for action, and as we've stated prior, these actions have an associated cost in the form of a risk of unwanted happenstance. Here I shall coin the term 'Totality of Risk', the grouping of the risks of the all possible actions in the chosen scenic context. The importance of this definition becomes apparent when we observe the attempts of participants (whom we will claim as risk-averse), in trying to manipulate this totality: either through shifting the risk to another, or, in unique cases, the direct reduction of it.
It is important to understand the nature of such manipulations (or transformations), as being through either internal or external influences. The gold standard for such manipulations is that they stem from the actions of characters, affecting the totality in an organic manner. These internal influences, affect the community perception of the process, by enforcing a context-wide story-cohesion, which informs our perceived risk. Although, external means of influence are also available to us, usually in the form of GM decision, administrative action, or simple player-to-player coordination (more simply, OOC planning). In rare cases, these external means are more preferable than internal methods, as they can force participants to push through a slump, although carrying the risk of harming story-cohesion.
With this, my exposition can finally come to a close, and I can begin the real complaint. As noted in the entry paragraph, this complaint is aimed at specific group, being the Appache-Zoku, and their lead, Shin Okada (played by @ItsLiam). I believe that some of his actions and behaviour have caused harm to the community, i.e.: attempts to influence the totality through external means (although, unsuccessful), and the litigation of grievances with the event staff through improper channels of communication. Each of these actions, to my understanding, have harmed story-cohesion and unjustly undermined the trust of the community towards their event team.
To begin with some background, Appache-Zoku was one of the original gangs of District One when the event had began. My extent of knowledge on their doings is that they primarily engaged in commerce, and renting out property (business and housing alike). However, their plans of reigning control over the District began to seep through to the common eye, once the prize of a Combine Fabricator had been showcased by the Pit. Each gang could sign up a representative, and upon winning the fight, they could claim the spoils (being the Fabricator). Unluckily, their candidate lost the fight, which lead the Appache group to spring into action and try to strong-arm the victor gang into destroying the Fabricator. When such conflict arose, governor Milada (played by @Imperator RAD-X) had intervened to drive some resolution to the issue. In the end, after the ownership of the Fabricator was set to some other organisation for safe-keeping, Milada proposed holding elections for ministerial positions of District One. To note, the Appache had shown a keen interest towards the governor before-hand, and upon being granted the chance of taking a spot in governance, Okada took the immediate opportunity to cement himself as the Minister of Finance.
Long after, Appache-Zoku began being overt and explicit in their actions of entrenching power to their group. They tried to place their own members in other ministerial positions, and grant (untouchable) key employment spots through executive decrees; trying to circumvent a lawful election process by amending the rules of the race while it was in-progress; even trying to silence dissenting opinions through the usage of the Precinct, or strong-arming weaker gang-leads into taking action against their own. This entire conspiracy had come through organically, as actions were taken by player-led characters within the District, and no issue is to be found with it. However, we can find issue when we analyse future events, and begin forming a perception of incongruency between perceived risk and actual risk.
All the actions I've described so far are obvious plays of power, made to further their own group (the Appache), at the detriment of others. These actions ought to incur a large risk toward the indicted group, as such actions are bound to give rise to resentment. Moreover, there have been individuals, whom have tried to push against the will of the Appache-Zoku, by either acting as obstacles, or fan further flame of disillusionment with their group inside the District One populous. Yet, when I analyse the timeline of events that came before and after these power plays, I can hardly find any such risk of ever being present. Not only that, I've been witness to a bizarre belief espoused by @ItsLiam, that not only is his character in grand risk, but that the placement of that risk (upon Okada) is actually unjustified.
Herein lie my issues with the behaviour showcased by @ItsLiam: he claims that there is a band of people within the event staff, that have targeted the character of Okada for OOC reasons. All the harassment and obstacles, which have been mere vitriolic broadcasts by player-led characters against Okada, and an /event which indicted his character's actions as spurring up riots, have not happen through organic, story-cohesive actions; instead, they have been devised OOC'ly, to stop Okada from gaining any standing in the political system. Reading through these discussion, @ItsLiam has claimed bad-faith conduct, in-part from the staff leading the event — and in other parts, by the players themselves. These should obviously lead @ItsLiam in being proactive by either contacting the server directorate to elaborating his discontent with how the staff has been acting towards his character, or through a formal complaint post on the forums. Neither of these seem to have occurred, and I've only seen @ItsLiam litigate these issues in public chats, inside the Discord server (and multiple times at that).
Furthermore, it is hard to believe the claims that @ItsLiam makes about targeted harassment, as all such issues seem to have been reconciled in those same public litigations. Server directorate had explained to him that every happen-stance that he had found suspicious, had been mere coincidence. Its even harder to believe that his character had ever been in positions of risk, as during the afro-mentioned riot, he'd come out of it unharmed for the most part. In contrast, the two leaders of the militia, had been severely punished by the Precinct for the riot, wherein: one had came out maimed, while the another was hanged (although, this was due to the desires of the character's owner, rather than a decision of the precinct leads). Everyone was harmed from the aftermath of the riot, but Okada was the least harmed of all, even though the totality should disfavour him, and by his own word that people are calling for his head.
From here on, it should be easy to understand my grievances. From what has happened to Okada, I can only end up with an conflicting perception of the application of risk during the roleplay process. Overt actions of amassing control are not met with an equal measure of pushback, which ought lead me to believe that the totality of risk is actually much smaller in scale, or is shifted elsewhere. Yet, each action I've taken as my own character, has been anything but. This incongruity is shared by many of the members of the community too, as the story-cohesion seems to be fractured from external influences. And on the part of OOC meddling, the actions of @ItsLiam have been inappropriate, as his constant litigation of grievances through improper channels has given rise to community outrage towards the staff of Willard; of which, had believed they had already reconciled the issues prior, and had been quite proactive in granting goodwill toward @ItsLiam. Its very displeasing to see such behaviour on display, especially when the person has gotten way more goodwill by the staff than anyone else during this event, and yet they still continue to accuse said staff of bad-faithed conduct.
To conclude, I wish to impart a few thoughts to the community – and its presiding staff – on how they should conduct themselves in the future. First and foremost, you as the player are solely responsible for being aware and understanding the risks that come as a result of the actions that you direct your character towards. If you do not do so, you will find yourself participant in many-a-different complaint threads such as this one. Although, in the cases that you do believe wrong-doing has been committed (knowingly or not) towards you or your character, I implore you to litigate such issues through proper channels, so to not sow unnecessary outrage in people whom are not involved. As for the staff, those of you whom lead the great events that we participate in, do not be scared to hand down punishment, as an incoherent story and incongruous application of risk is way more harmful to the larger community. And for those in administrative positions, please be proactive in trying to reconcile issues that prop up in the community and set records straight for everyone else.
