[caesaropapist]

while i have fun on my alt and only plan to be the consent bandits and mess around because its fun to rp, on my main all i really do is talk to people and try to make stuff work, there's no real meat of conflict political wise unless you are part of the group, and when you do try to be player-driven, people unite and shut you down and it makes it hard. somebody making increased tension in meiaquar was easily snuffed out, the people with the coup were able to pull it off, but across the board, it seems (and i note seem as i really haven't been apart of any deep politics or anything going on behind scenes) to get involved in the player drivenness part of the roleplay. while it is good that the leads and ranks can unite, talk, etc, there's gotta be some way for people to do things without getting stepped on instantly or forced into situations that cause the conflict they attempt to make to be deleted.

i think there's a lesson to be learned about how people react to conflict or IC adversity

if you don't treat it with some slowness and give it a gradual build-up and instead rush the conclusion (be it killing the premier or kicking one dude out of the town) it's going to kill off a lot of avenues for roleplay that would otherwise exist. sometimes it really is best to let things take a slower pace even if it means intentionally staying your hand and losing a nice opportunity: because, on the flip side, it might mean that you (and everyone else) have to deal with a drought or a more boring experience as a result of being too quick to pull the trigger.

people try too hard to speedrun conflict or gang up on it immediately and it just makes it really boring.
it's cooperative storytelling, not trying your hardest to win out of character. a detail a lot of people forget.
(i'm not referring directly to any particular situation or context, just in general.)