Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

[Xizziano]

Most of the time I stay neutral unless forced because getting involved in Skyrim politics leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

i do too, the war doesnt even affect anything so i stay out of it, but being apart of the treaty in High Hrothgar i. never thought that would happen because i decided to get involved in the war, but that was before i knew my involvement in the actual war had no significance

Sent from my LG-MS770 using Tapatalk

 

[Anouck]

Anouck: Actually, I know Jeremy Stone, and he is like me, whatever decision feels right for the character that he is playing at the time.

I know Jeremy. He is with the Stormcloaks.
I too choose a side based on who my character is. What Jeremy does, however, is using his roleplay to prove lore wrong. He would say things like that Ulfric didn't kill Torygg (I don't remember the exact scenario) because his character roleplays he didn't. Of course, what you roleplay is not a valid argument in a debate. The sky is not green because you decided to think it is.

But that is a complete different debate. What is the debate about now anyway? Are we still going on about that execution?

 

[Anouck]

Most of the time I stay neutral unless forced because getting involved in Skyrim politics leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

i do too, the war doesnt even affect anything so i stay out of it, but being apart of the treaty in High Hrothgar i. never thought that would happen because i decided to get involved in the war, but that was before i knew my involvement in the actual war had no significance

Sent from my LG-MS770 using Tapatalk

True, the war hardly affects anything. But this is where the whole 'roleplay game' kicks in. You roleplay why your character joined a faction and who he is. Take a look at your deeds and just imagine what kind of effect they would have.
Or, was people here are doing, use your own common sense to predict what the future will bring when one faction wins and the others lose.

 

[Pronged Pickle]

Yes, you do. Because this thread is about the Civil War. Not how often you can train or the development of your mage. Just pointing it out to you. If you want valid responses, you might create a thread yourself or go to one about this very subject.



You consider the discussion pointless. You have to understand this debate is mostly about morals, not how much your choice will affect the game. As we know, not much changes - whether you choose for the Legion or not. But people do like to think of the consequences their actions might have for the future of Skyrim and all of Tamriel.

I don't really see what you mean by 'the treaty in High Hhrotgar' thing. Are you talking about the Season Unending quest?

I am referring to "Season Unending" and i mentioned it was interesting if this was a hypothetical discussion, you just validated my point on that. but the first poster EvilCrazyCow mentioned being a khajit mage i meant to only reply to that

Sent from my LG-MS770 using Tapatalk

Well, welcome to one of the biggest threads on the forums. People discuss here what faction to join. The title says it is about the Imperials and the Stormcloaks, but the Aldmeri Dominion pops up now and then as well. Even though there are already more than 650 pages of discussion, the conversation keeps going on and on. Old arguments return and new ones are brought up.
At the moment, the majority of debaters are Legion supporters. There are a few Stormcloaks and even a bunch of Thalmor. That tends to change, though. Just like the subject of debate. At the moment, people are discussing the execution in the very beginning of the game.

...These are, as far as I am concerned, the active members and which faction they support. Correct me if I am wrong...

The Stormcloaks
Jeremy Stone, Sven, Raijin

The Imperial Legion
DrunkenMage, Anouck, Docta Corvina, Jeremius, Sweetroll Thief, Rimfaxe96, Snake-Brother282, Pronged Pickle

The Aldmeri Dominion
NENALATA,

In most debates, people use morals and ideals - but also lore. That means quotes, in-game books, information from Bethesda themselves etc. This lore can be found all over the internet, but often contains mistakes. The most trustworthy sources for information, are these websites.
www.uesp.net
www.imperial-library.info

Being anything else has left a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Jeremius]

I am referring to "Season Unending" and i mentioned it was interesting if this was a hypothetical discussion, you just validated my point on that. but the first poster EvilCrazyCow mentioned being a khajit mage i meant to only reply to that

Sent from my LG-MS770 using Tapatalk

Well, welcome to one of the biggest threads on the forums. People discuss here what faction to join. The title says it is about the Imperials and the Stormcloaks, but the Aldmeri Dominion pops up now and then as well. Even though there are already more than 650 pages of discussion, the conversation keeps going on and on. Old arguments return and new ones are brought up.
At the moment, the majority of debaters are Legion supporters. There are a few Stormcloaks and even a bunch of Thalmor. That tends to change, though. Just like the subject of debate. At the moment, people are discussing the execution in the very beginning of the game.

...These are, as far as I am concerned, the active members and which faction they support. Correct me if I am wrong...

The Stormcloaks
Sven, Raijin

The Imperial Legion
DrunkenMage, Anouck, Docta Corvina, Sweetroll Thief, Rimfaxe96, Snake-Brother282, Pronged Pickle

The Aldmeri Dominion
NENALATA,

In most debates, people use morals and ideals - but also lore. That means quotes, in-game books, information from Bethesda themselves etc. This lore can be found all over the internet, but often contains mistakes. The most trustworthy sources for information, are these websites.
www.uesp.net
www.imperial-library.info

Being anything else has left a bad taste in my mouth.

and being involved at all leaves a bad taste in my and stone's mouths. best to be neutral and just decide randomly.

 

[Docta Corvina]

Anouck: Actually, I know Jeremy Stone, and he is like me, whatever decision feels right for the character that he is playing at the time.

To be totally honest, I thought he WAS you, just an alt account. I'm still suspicious...

 

[Jeremius]

Anouck: Actually, I know Jeremy Stone, and he is like me, whatever decision feels right for the character that he is playing at the time.

To be totally honest, I thought he WAS you, just an alt account. I'm still suspicious...

maybe he is, maybe he is not. All I will say is that he and I share the same opinion on the Civil War, that it leaves a bad taste in the mouth getting involved in the politics of a country we just got to.

 

[Docta Corvina]

Anouck: Actually, I know Jeremy Stone, and he is like me, whatever decision feels right for the character that he is playing at the time.

To be totally honest, I thought he WAS you, just an alt account. I'm still suspicious...

maybe he is, maybe he is not. All I will say is that he and I share the same opinion on the Civil War, that it is bad taste in mouth getting involved the politics of a country we just got to.

Hey, fair enough.

 

[Jeremius]

Anouck: Actually, I know Jeremy Stone, and he is like me, whatever decision feels right for the character that he is playing at the time.

I know Jeremy. He is with the Stormcloaks.
I too choose a side based on who my character is. What Jeremy does, however, is using his roleplay to prove lore wrong. He would say things like that Ulfric didn't kill Torygg (I don't remember the exact scenario) because his character roleplays he didn't. Of course, what you roleplay is not a valid argument in a debate. The sky is not green because you decided to think it is.

But that is a complete different debate. What is the debate about now anyway? Are we still going on about that execution?

RP=/=Stormcloak just because you put him in there. Him refusing lore for his RP is actually about how the characters are different therefore are given different personalities, which makes a general opinion based on lore useless to the RP player.

Here is how most people (Including people like Stone) do RP:

• Stormcloak Character: Believes Ulfric did the right thing killing Torygg because their personality is one of freedom and morality.
• Imperial Character: Ulfric is a murderer and a traitor purely because they think Ulfric is causing trouble.

I have been on forums where this debate stuff is the complete opposite, with the Stormcloaks using the lore and the Imperials denying it for their RP. I know this is the truth, unlike those idiots here who automatically equate RP with Stormcloak. I am one of those people who prefer to use the RP primarily/only when making a choice on this subject.

 

[Anouck]

Anouck: Actually, I know Jeremy Stone, and he is like me, whatever decision feels right for the character that he is playing at the time.

I know Jeremy. He is with the Stormcloaks.
I too choose a side based on who my character is. What Jeremy does, however, is using his roleplay to prove lore wrong. He would say things like that Ulfric didn't kill Torygg (I don't remember the exact scenario) because his character roleplays he didn't. Of course, what you roleplay is not a valid argument in a debate. The sky is not green because you decided to think it is.

But that is a complete different debate. What is the debate about now anyway? Are we still going on about that execution?

RP=/=Stormcloak just because you put him in there. Him refusing lore for his RP is actually about how the characters are different therefore are given different personalities, which makes a general opinion based on lore useless to the RP player.

Here is how most people (Including people like Stone) do RP:

• Stormcloak Character: Believes Ulfric did the right thing killing Torygg because their personality is one of freedom and morality.
• Imperial Character: Ulfric is a murderer and a traitor purely because they think Ulfric is causing trouble.

I have been on forums where this debate stuff is the complete opposite, with the Stormcloaks using the lore and the Imperials denying it for their RP. I know this is the truth, unlike those idiots here who automatically equate RP with Stormcloak.

It was not like that. If it would be, it would be different. This was not about holding a certain interpretation, but denying entire chunks of history - like it never took place, like certain people never existed. And if that works in your roleplay, that is fine. But you can't convince me with it. Because that is what happened: debating other opinions with a roleplay. This is pretty much how it went, let me give you an example. 'President Obama did a pretty good job so far'. 'Barack Obama never was president'. 'Yes he was' 'but I roleplay he was not president. I don't see why you think he did a good job because he was never the president to begin with'.
This kind of logic doesn't work. You have to admit that.

 

[Jeremius]

I know Jeremy. He is with the Stormcloaks.
I too choose a side based on who my character is. What Jeremy does, however, is using his roleplay to prove lore wrong. He would say things like that Ulfric didn't kill Torygg (I don't remember the exact scenario) because his character roleplays he didn't. Of course, what you roleplay is not a valid argument in a debate. The sky is not green because you decided to think it is.

But that is a complete different debate. What is the debate about now anyway? Are we still going on about that execution?

RP=/=Stormcloak just because you put him in there. Him refusing lore for his RP is actually about how the characters are different therefore are given different personalities, which makes a general opinion based on lore useless to the RP player.

Here is how most people (Including people like Stone) do RP:

• Stormcloak Character: Believes Ulfric did the right thing killing Torygg because their personality is one of freedom and morality.
• Imperial Character: Ulfric is a murderer and a traitor purely because they think Ulfric is causing trouble.

I have been on forums where this debate stuff is the complete opposite, with the Stormcloaks using the lore and the Imperials denying it for their RP. I know this is the truth, unlike those idiots here who automatically equate RP with Stormcloak.

It was not like that. If it would be, it would be different. This was not about holding a certain interpretation, but denying entire chunks of history - like it never took place, like certain people never existed. And if that works in your roleplay, that is fine. But you can't convince me with it. Because that is what happened: debating other opinions with a roleplay. This is pretty much how it went, let me give you an example. 'President Obama did a pretty good job so far'. 'Barack Obama never was president'. 'Yes he was' 'but I roleplay he was not president. I don't see why you think he did a good job because he was never the president to begin with'.
This kind of logic doesn't work. You have to admit that.

People who use RP to make their choices tend to think that history does not add to the decision-making process. so they tend to ignore history because they feel it means nothing to the choice they are making.

And show me where he actually said he RP'd that Ulfric did not kill Torygg. From what I understand he was saying that Ulfric was not the only one to blame for Torygg's death.

 

[Anouck]

RP=/=Stormcloak just because you put him in there. Him refusing lore for his RP is actually about how the characters are different therefore are given different personalities, which makes a general opinion based on lore useless to the RP player.

Here is how most people (Including people like Stone) do RP:

• Stormcloak Character: Believes Ulfric did the right thing killing Torygg because their personality is one of freedom and morality.
• Imperial Character: Ulfric is a murderer and a traitor purely because they think Ulfric is causing trouble.

I have been on forums where this debate stuff is the complete opposite, with the Stormcloaks using the lore and the Imperials denying it for their RP. I know this is the truth, unlike those idiots here who automatically equate RP with Stormcloak.

It was not like that. If it would be, it would be different. This was not about holding a certain interpretation, but denying entire chunks of history - like it never took place, like certain people never existed. And if that works in your roleplay, that is fine. But you can't convince me with it. Because that is what happened: debating other opinions with a roleplay. This is pretty much how it went, let me give you an example. 'President Obama did a pretty good job so far'. 'Barack Obama never was president'. 'Yes he was' 'but I roleplay he was not president. I don't see why you think he did a good job because he was never the president to begin with'.
This kind of logic doesn't work. You have to admit that.

People who use RP to make their choices tend to think that history does not add to the decision-making process. so they tend to ignore history because they feel it means nothing to the choice they are making.

And show me where he actually said he RP'd that Ulfric did not kill Torygg. From what I understand he was saying that Ulfric was not the only one to blame for Torygg's death.

...You are Jeremy, aren't you.
Like I already said in that post: it was an example, I don't remember the exact situation. I do know that this happened multiple times. I am not going to scroll back several pages, also because I don't feel like having the next debate on Jeremy's posting.
I don't care if people rolepay, but they can't use roleplay in an argument about facts. Well, they can. But their point would be invalid. I guess you know what I mean.

It is time DrunkenMage posts something because I guess the whole execution debate stopped.

 

[Jeremius]

It was not like that. If it would be, it would be different. This was not about holding a certain interpretation, but denying entire chunks of history - like it never took place, like certain people never existed. And if that works in your roleplay, that is fine. But you can't convince me with it. Because that is what happened: debating other opinions with a roleplay. This is pretty much how it went, let me give you an example. 'President Obama did a pretty good job so far'. 'Barack Obama never was president'. 'Yes he was' 'but I roleplay he was not president. I don't see why you think he did a good job because he was never the president to begin with'.
This kind of logic doesn't work. You have to admit that.

People who use RP to make their choices tend to think that history does not add to the decision-making process. so they tend to ignore history because they feel it means nothing to the choice they are making.

And show me where he actually said he RP'd that Ulfric did not kill Torygg. From what I understand he was saying that Ulfric was not the only one to blame for Torygg's death.

...You are Jeremy, aren't you.
Like I already said in that post: it was an example, I don't remember the exact situation. I do know that this happened multiple times. I am not going to scroll back several pages, also because I don't feel like having the next debate on Jeremy's posting.
I don't care if people rolepay, but they can't use roleplay in an argument about facts. Well, they can. But their point would be invalid. I guess you know what I mean.

It is time DrunkenMage posts something because I guess the whole execution debate stopped.

what facts are there about the civil war? That the Dunmer are in the grey quarter and Ulfric is too busy with the Civil War to listen to them? That Ulfric killed Torygg and the Imperials use laws to call it treason and murder?

Note, I am not ignoring the facts either, just saying that calling this a debate of facts when posts like "Ulfric killed torygg because he wanted to be high king, and imperial law says it is murder and treason makes it so he does simply want to be high king" is not fact. show me one piece of lore evidence that says he wants to be high king for the power of being high king only.

 

[Anouck]

People who use RP to make their choices tend to think that history does not add to the decision-making process. so they tend to ignore history because they feel it means nothing to the choice they are making.

And show me where he actually said he RP'd that Ulfric did not kill Torygg. From what I understand he was saying that Ulfric was not the only one to blame for Torygg's death.

...You are Jeremy, aren't you.
Like I already said in that post: it was an example, I don't remember the exact situation. I do know that this happened multiple times. I am not going to scroll back several pages, also because I don't feel like having the next debate on Jeremy's posting.
I don't care if people rolepay, but they can't use roleplay in an argument about facts. Well, they can. But their point would be invalid. I guess you know what I mean.

It is time DrunkenMage posts something because I guess the whole execution debate stopped.

what facts are there about the civil war? That the Dunmer are in the grey quarter and Ulfric is too busy with the Civil War to listen to them? That Ulfric killed Torygg and the Imperials use laws to call it treason and murder?

Note, I am not ignoring the facts either, just saying that calling this a debate of facts when posts like "Ulfric killed torygg because he wanted to be high king, and imperial law says it is murder and treason makes it so he does simply want to be high king" is not fact. show me one piece of lore evidence that says he wants to be high king for the power of being high king only.

Did I say it was a fact? I said that some people tend to ignore facts. That you draw this conclusion, is your fault. Not mine. I didn't say in any of the previous posts that Ulfric being a High King is a fact. Nor did I say this was a debate of facts.
The things you say in your post, are based on interpretation. The debate about Ulfrics intentions and the other examples, are still going.

What I was saying, is that you can't use an opinion to proof a fact wrong. You can't say "the sky is red because I think it is! The rest of the world is completely wrong!". That makes you look stupid. That is all that has been said. That subjective arguments usually lose against objective arguments. The things you imply, are very far from true.

 

[Jeremius]

...You are Jeremy, aren't you.
Like I already said in that post: it was an example, I don't remember the exact situation. I do know that this happened multiple times. I am not going to scroll back several pages, also because I don't feel like having the next debate on Jeremy's posting.
I don't care if people rolepay, but they can't use roleplay in an argument about facts. Well, they can. But their point would be invalid. I guess you know what I mean.

It is time DrunkenMage posts something because I guess the whole execution debate stopped.

what facts are there about the civil war? That the Dunmer are in the grey quarter and Ulfric is too busy with the Civil War to listen to them? That Ulfric killed Torygg and the Imperials use laws to call it treason and murder?

Note, I am not ignoring the facts either, just saying that calling this a debate of facts when posts like "Ulfric killed torygg because he wanted to be high king, and imperial law says it is murder and treason makes it so he does simply want to be high king" is not fact. show me one piece of lore evidence that says he wants to be high king for the power of being high king only.

Did I say it was a fact? I said that some people tend to ignore facts. That you draw this conclusion, is your fault. Not mine. I didn't say in any of the previous posts that Ulfric being a High King is a fact. Nor did I say this was a debate of facts.
The things you say in your post, are based on interpretation. The debate about Ulfrics intentions and the other examples, are still going.

What I was saying, is that you can't use an opinion to proof a fact wrong. You can't say "the sky is red because I think it is! The rest of the world is completely wrong!". That makes you look stupid. That is all that has been said. That subjective arguments usually lose against objective arguments. The things you imply, are very far from true.

nor can you prove that an RP player is a stormcloak just because they use RP and near-outright ignore lore, as they feel the lore means nothing to their decision-making processes.

If someone outright says that they think Ulfric did not kill Torygg, then it is wrong. But if that same person merely says that they think that Ulfric did the right thing in killing Torygg, and everyone else is wrong in their views, you cannot prove them wrong.

 

[Anouck]

what facts are there about the civil war? That the Dunmer are in the grey quarter and Ulfric is too busy with the Civil War to listen to them? That Ulfric killed Torygg and the Imperials use laws to call it treason and murder?

Note, I am not ignoring the facts either, just saying that calling this a debate of facts when posts like "Ulfric killed torygg because he wanted to be high king, and imperial law says it is murder and treason makes it so he does simply want to be high king" is not fact. show me one piece of lore evidence that says he wants to be high king for the power of being high king only.

Did I say it was a fact? I said that some people tend to ignore facts. That you draw this conclusion, is your fault. Not mine. I didn't say in any of the previous posts that Ulfric being a High King is a fact. Nor did I say this was a debate of facts.
The things you say in your post, are based on interpretation. The debate about Ulfrics intentions and the other examples, are still going.

What I was saying, is that you can't use an opinion to proof a fact wrong. You can't say "the sky is red because I think it is! The rest of the world is completely wrong!". That makes you look stupid. That is all that has been said. That subjective arguments usually lose against objective arguments. The things you imply, are very far from true.

nor can you prove that an RP player is a stormcloak just because they use RP and near-outright ignore lore, as they feel the lore means nothing to their decision-making processes.

You are really making up arguments out of thin air, are you? I didn't say that anyone was a Stormcloak because they RP'ed? I only used a Stormcloak as an example, and said that this person used Roleplay as an argument. That had nothing to do with his political side. If he was a Thalmor or an Imperial, I'd use him as an example too.

If you mean that I listed Jeremy as one of the Stormcloaks, then please. I told a person who was new on the thread who belonged to which side. I also said "correct me if I am wrong".

 

[Jeremius]

Did I say it was a fact? I said that some people tend to ignore facts. That you draw this conclusion, is your fault. Not mine. I didn't say in any of the previous posts that Ulfric being a High King is a fact. Nor did I say this was a debate of facts.
The things you say in your post, are based on interpretation. The debate about Ulfrics intentions and the other examples, are still going.

What I was saying, is that you can't use an opinion to proof a fact wrong. You can't say "the sky is red because I think it is! The rest of the world is completely wrong!". That makes you look stupid. That is all that has been said. That subjective arguments usually lose against objective arguments. The things you imply, are very far from true.

nor can you prove that an RP player is a stormcloak just because they use RP and near-outright ignore lore, as they feel the lore means nothing to their decision-making processes.

You are really making up arguments out of thin air, are you? I didn't say that anyone was a Stormcloak because they RP'ed? I only used a Stormcloak as an example, and said that this person used Roleplay as an argument. That had nothing to do with his political side. If he was a Thalmor or an Imperial, I'd use him as an example too.

Ever thought it was because he rp's and not read into lore at all his RP arguments are just that, and he does not support the stormcloaks himself? Has he ever said he supports them on his own, but RP because he wants to?

If you mean that I listed Jeremy as one of the Stormcloaks, then please. I told a person who was new on the thread who belonged to which side. I also said "correct me if I am wrong".

and I corrected you, because I know Jeremy Stone and he and I are of the same opinion, that we will RP when making decisions and to "argue" if we do not want to get into debates, but rather show that a decision is not based on lore at all. We are the neutrals, the RP players who let out RP's make the decisions, not the lore any imperial/stormcloak lore nut clings so tightly to.

 

[Anouck]

Ever thought it was because he rp's and not read into lore at all his RP arguments are just that, and he does not support the stormcloaks himself? Has he ever said he supports them on his own, but RP because he wants to?

No, but he defended the Stormcloaks and attacked the Empire. That is why I assumed he was a Stormcloak. Stop acting all offended; why is it so bad that I thought he was something he is not? And Jeremy is a big boy. Why don't you let him speak for himself instead of telling everyone what he does or doesn't think? Unless you are Jeremy you can only guess what he thinks. Like all of us.

and I corrected you, because I know Jeremy Stone and he and I are of the same opinion, that we will RP when making decisions and to "argue" if we do not want to get into debates, but rather show that a decision is not based on lore at all. We are the neutrals, the RP players who let out RP's make the decisions, not the lore any imperial/stormcloak lore nut clings so tightly to.

I wonder if you even read my posts. That would be the only way to justify writing a respone that implies something that wasn't even mentioned at all. RP is fine. Everyone RP's in here. I have Stormcloak characters myself, and I RP on them too. That was not the point. The point was that Roleplay is not a solid argument against a fact. You can't say that the Tamriel is actually a province of Germany, and everyone who doesn't believe that is wrong, because you happen to roleplay this. I hope we both agree that doesn't make any sense?
Roleplay is fine, especially to yourself. You can roleplay whatever you want in your game. Hell, you can roleplay Tamriel is actually a province of Germany. It is just not valid in a debate where people acknowledge the fact that Tamriel is on Nirn.
That doesn't denegrate roleplay. In fact, you compromise roleplay by putting it in a vulnerable position like this.

 

[Jeremius]

Ever thought it was because he rp's and not read into lore at all his RP arguments are just that, and he does not support the stormcloaks himself? Has he ever said he supports them on his own, but RP because he wants to?

No, but he defended the Stormcloaks and attacked the Empire. That is why I assumed he was a Stormcloak. Stop acting all offended; why is it so bad that I thought he was something he is not? And Jeremy is a big boy. Why don't you let him speak for himself instead of telling everyone what he does or doesn't think? Unless you are Jeremy you can only guess what he thinks. Like all of us.

He left the forums, so I am guessing, but from what I saw, he is not a stormcloak, but someone who is defending a faction's viewpoints because he agree with some of those viewpoints, generally.

and I corrected you, because I know Jeremy Stone and he and I are of the same opinion, that we will RP when making decisions and to "argue" if we do not want to get into debates, but rather show that a decision is not based on lore at all. We are the neutrals, the RP players who let out RP's make the decisions, not the lore any imperial/stormcloak lore nut clings so tightly to.

I wonder if you even read my posts. That would be the only way to justify writing a respone that implies something that wasn't even mentioned at all. RP is fine. Everyone RP's in here. I have Stormcloak characters myself, and I RP on them too. That was not the point. The point was that Roleplay is not a solid argument against a fact. You can't say that the Tamriel is actually a province of Germany, and everyone who doesn't believe that is wrong, because you happen to roleplay this. I hope we both agree that doesn't make any sense?
Roleplay is fine, especially to yourself. You can roleplay whatever you want in your game. Hell, you can roleplay Tamriel is actually a province of Germany. It is just not valid in a debate where people acknowledge the fact that Tamriel is on Nirn.
That doesn't denegrate roleplay. In fact, you compromise roleplay by putting it in a vulnerable position like this.

and I do agree with that. I just disagree with the idea that you should force down anyone who uses RP, just because you do not like their opinion. Just tell them you do not agree with them and they will likely leave it at that.

 

[Anouck]

Ever thought it was because he rp's and not read into lore at all his RP arguments are just that, and he does not support the stormcloaks himself? Has he ever said he supports them on his own, but RP because he wants to?

No, but he defended the Stormcloaks and attacked the Empire. That is why I assumed he was a Stormcloak. Stop acting all offended; why is it so bad that I thought he was something he is not? And Jeremy is a big boy. Why don't you let him speak for himself instead of telling everyone what he does or doesn't think? Unless you are Jeremy you can only guess what he thinks. Like all of us.

and I corrected you, because I know Jeremy Stone and he and I are of the same opinion, that we will RP when making decisions and to "argue" if we do not want to get into debates, but rather show that a decision is not based on lore at all. We are the neutrals, the RP players who let out RP's make the decisions, not the lore any imperial/stormcloak lore nut clings so tightly to.

I wonder if you even read my posts. That would be the only way to justify writing a respone that implies something that wasn't even mentioned at all. RP is fine. Everyone RP's in here. I have Stormcloak characters myself, and I RP on them too. That was not the point. The point was that Roleplay is not a solid argument against a fact. You can't say that the Tamriel is actually a province of Germany, and everyone who doesn't believe that is wrong, because you happen to roleplay this. I hope we both agree that doesn't make any sense?
Roleplay is fine, especially to yourself. You can roleplay whatever you want in your game. Hell, you can roleplay Tamriel is actually a province of Germany. It is just not valid in a debate where people acknowledge the fact that Tamriel is on Nirn.
That doesn't denegrate roleplay. In fact, you compromise roleplay by putting it in a vulnerable position like this.

and I do agree with that. I just disagree with the idea that you should force down anyone who uses RP, just because you do not like their opinion. Just tell them you do not agree with them and they will likely leave it at that.

If you come to a debate thread, people don't just say 'I disagree, bye'. People tell you why they disagree, and, especially what they think of it. This opposite opinion is in no way superior to another opinion, that is something I never implied.
I never forced anyone into anything because I disagreed with them. I only said that RP can be a weak argument against a fact. If you roleplay your character is a Stormcloak, and also roleplay that Ulfric didn't kill Torygg but the Illuminati - fine. I don't care. Do whatever makes you happy. But if you bring up a roleplay argument in a thread like this, people won't take that serious. Because lore said that it was Ulfric who caused Toryggs dead, whether it was legal or not. Lore doesn't care whether you think it was the Illuminati - in the TES universe it is an unquestionable fact. And then you pretty much already lost.
I never said something was wrong with roleplay. We are just in a debate where people use actual facts and ingame situations to figure out what is the best way to solve this Civil War issue. And then RP loses against lore. Does that mean your opinion is less valid? No. It means your subjective argument lost against an objective argument in a theoretical debate.