[Neus]

I don't want to derail the topic too much, but since the subject of IC wars came up, I wanted to offer my perspective.

I agree that this community has BECOME not ready for these events. But I 100% blame the GM team for at least parts of it, for being too handholdey, protective and spoiling these kind of people so much that they could invoke powers of Time reversal or Godhod or Ultrainstinct Autonomous Consequnce Dodge, based on how hard they cried so that it became a valid strategy to save your character from another character, no matter how deserved it ICly was. The GM team shouldn't exist to Veto or prevent RP, they should only exist to ensure things go according to the rules and as fair as possible. (And not change or make up rules, based on how they feel at that moment. Don't act as if you don't.)

I don't think the community ever was 'ready' for them, beyond the very start of Korvara. Even back then, there were a lot of loud voices that came out at the first sign of a larger scale conflict brewing.

Ultimately the GM team doesn't actively try to veto RP; they are trying to keep things fair. Sometimes, people RP in an uninteractive way, sometimes they metagame or abuse alts/pets. Not referring to any specific situation, but there have been several cases like that.

What I am trying to say is...That this enviorment for no Wars or ANY negative conflict, even when some clearly want this conflict, is based on a simple double standard mentality. "Good" characters will always benefit IC and OOC, while "Evil" characters will always suffer as they are not seen equal as Characters, yet they are very much needed to prevent staleness and need the help the most. GM's rule very often based on Emotions based on that, I feel. Its high time, there are more places detached from the 4 nations, with clear rules that they are not as handholdey by design, and let people go there if they want more "mean" Rp, without the protection. Then these that enjoy this can live in their bubble without dragging people that do not want that in. Probably the most healthy solution, even if not perfect.

I don't believe that it's based on any double standard. People are averse to wars because of the major conflicts in memory, such as Fairview or Geladyne vs Meiaquar.

This isn't because the IC situation didn't make sense, or because there wasn't a system in place preventing it from progressing. It's because there was a lot of OOC toxicity, often over petty things. This is the case almost any time 'big' conflict comes up. It doesn't matter what or where it is, or what the stakes are. It doesn't matter if both sides have a firm agreement on how things will go beforehand (like in Fairview, or even the Marauders), or not.

All it takes is one big argument and the shine is off the apple. I know in situations where ICly, I have been the catalyst for conflict, and people loudly complain OOC (be it over valid points or not), I typically lose interest in pursuing it much further - if anything stifles wars or conflict in general, it's that. No one wants to engage when people behave this way and make the experience miserable.

While adding areas like Law's End that offer a different experience than the existing nations is a potentially good idea, doing so under the motivation of creating spaces where 'things really matter here, and you can do everything people would whine about elsewhere' is not. First of all, let's be real - people are still going to complain.

Second, and more importantly, creating isolated areas with wildly different OOC expectations is harmful to the RP environment, because it makes it less immersive, among other reasons.

If folks wish to ever move forward with conflict in RP environments they need to accept and understand that it is not something you inflict upon others, and is something you work on with others. Like a wrestling match, otherwise you will find much like in wrestling. If you do not work together. No one will be willing to work with you.

I largely agree with you in principle. I also think that people (in general) should be more receptive to the unexpected, however.