Smorgasboarding: Pros and Cons

Illyriad is a game of diplomacy.  How one acts on the forums and in GC can have consequences in the game.  So avoiding such consequences is a BIG part of being a good player.  It's even more important for an alliance leader or someone who hopes to someday become one.   If you say things publicly and constantly that piss a lot of people off, you are basically sealing your own fate.  Publicly accusing an alliance of thieving with little evidence would be a move that could cause such a severe reaction..  aj wasn't bullied or "smorgasboarded", he just felt in-game consequences directly related to his own actions.  I see no reason why this should upset people!

Jane,

When you said: "Publicly accusing an alliance of thieving with little evidence" you obvioiusly did not read the post completely or look at the available evidence.  The post specifically says I was not accusing anybody of thieving.  Read the post.  I merely laid out the evidence I had and told people they could draw their own conclusions.  That you thought the evidence pointed to thieving is the only way you could say I accused anybody of thieving.  Thus the evidence presented was sufficient for you to draw a conclusion I did not draw.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say the evidence was "little" at the same time you say it was "enough" for a person to draw a particular conclusion (valid or not).

In addition, if the alliance in question thought the evidence so poor, why did they think I had accused them?  I can call you a marshmallow but nobody would take me seriously unless I had a picture of you in a "Stay Puff" bag (LOL)  My point is that the evidence was strong enough that a LOT of people thought it led to the accusation you thought I was making.... and if so, then obviously the evidence was not "little"

I will admit here and now that the evidence was not conclusive.  But it was never presented that way and in the post I said the evidence was not complete AND that I was NOT accusing anybody.  I will also admit that the structure of the presentation was not neutral enough to and tended to lead others to a conclusion that fell short of proof.  I regret that I did not reflect myself enough on the wording and should have either not made the post of taken it to a different place for review.

But even so, whatever a person says in the forum ought to be dealt with in the forum.  I'm quite certain that if I were accused of this I would have done my homework and presented an alternative theory to show that the evidence presented could reach a different conclusion and THEN asked the poster to amend his or her post.  And if I had been presented with that scenario (the alternative explanation did come long after other actions were taken) I would have sheepishly amended my post and admitted my mistakes.

But that is not the procedure some people think to use.  Instead of doing themselves justice and making their case in the forums (and in doing so the weakness of the original argument) they choose display their own apparent belief that they have no good counter argument by using "other means" to "win"the debate.  This approach is nothing more than the same thuggery you experience when you are in a debate in RL and the person with whom you are debating decides they can't win and threatens you.  It is obviously not as serious a threat, but it's the same basic threat.  I would say to anybody who doesn't have the stomach for good debate and the self-discipline to stick to the question and make their case, don't get into the debate. 

There is no excuse for bullying people just because you can't counter their arguments with better arguments.  The force of arms ought not be the final arbiter of good debate for when it is all who speak are threatened.  If you wish to speak you ought to remember that the first step to silencing everybody is to silence the best and the loudest.  

AJ

Jane,

Did you read my post? Did I not say I should have taken my evidence to my alliance? 

As for it being "terrible diplomacy" did you really expect me to be a master diplomat?  LOL  Ask my wife and she will disavow my abilities in that area.

How about you admit that other than making my case in public and not presenting it well, both of which I have admitted, you may have over stated your case.  I notice you don't respond to my claim that the evidence was not "little."  I suspect you don't because it wasn't.  And if it wasn't then my only fault was in being a poor diplomat.  Mea Culpa.

And on that note, is it really good diplomacy to get on the side that says, "I'm pissed off so that justifies whatever I want to do?"...which is what you seem to be saying.  I wouldn't want to be on side that says emotions are the final arbiter of right and wrong. 

AJ

Brandmeister,

Well, at least you tried.

In debate you can't simply call everything the other side is saying "trash talk" and pretend it fits the definition. Using your own definition here:

Trash-talk is a form of boast or insult commonly heard in competitive situations, (such as sports events and multiplayer video games). It is often used to intimidate the opposition, but can also be used in a humorous spirit. Trash-talk is often characterized by use of hyperbole or figurative language.

with your own additions and emphasis, lets examine what you are saying and see if you've even come close to prooving your point.

First, the argument is about a set of behaviors I classify as "intimidation, threats and coercion" a phrase the shorthand of which is "bullying."  Notice that this is the topic of which almost all the evidence you call "trash talking" is used to support and define this key term.  Just because a phrase is negative does not make it "trash talk" especially if it's what's being debated.

But there's more.

"Insult" is a negative term, defined as: "speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse."  Claiming that the actions inherent in land claims is only disrespectful if you think that "intimidation, threat and coercion" are not applicable AND that these are the techniques being used to enforce land claims.  It is never disrespectful to tell the truth as you understand it...unless you are intending to hurt I suppose.

"often used to intimidate?"  If my talk is intimidating the activity of this thread certainly is strange.  Are you intimidated?  Do you feel like you can't say what you want?  Do you have any reason to fear that even if you accidentally insult me I'm going to send my armies at you?  I think not.

and

"often characterized by use of hyperbole."  Hmmm...this may have a small bit of truth to it...though I think if it does it has only been out of my passionate style.

So, using your definition:  The evidence you present cannot be admitted as "trash talk" because it's part of discussion and if it is "insulting" it's only so if it's untrue ...which is the point we are debating.  Second, nobody seems to be intimidated by my passionate style.  And finally, okay, I may, sometimes, a tiny bit, exaggerate.

Now, for the real evidence of trash talking by myself......I'm waiting.....

AJ


Edited by ajqtrz - 06 Jun 2015 at 04:06

ajqtrz wrote: The post specifically says I was not accusing anybody of thieving.  Read the post.  I merely laid out the evidence I had and told people they could draw their own conclusions. ... But it was never presented that way and in the post I said the evidence was not complete AND that I was NOT accusing anybody.

ajqtrz wrote: Calculating the direction I found that they were headed in the direction of 645 -2322, an orc city owned by Chandrian of SIN, called Imladris.

You named a specific player and city. I'd call that an accusation. Admitting that you can't actually prove it was that player doesn't mean you didn't make an accusation, it just means you made an unsubstantiated accusation. Big difference. Leading with the conclusion precludes any right to claim that the evidence was presented in an impartial manner.

You have yet to address the completely substantiated fact that your own alliance recently carried out unprovoked thief missions against eCrow, one of the friendliest alliances in the game. Apparently you believe it is a great crime when you personally suffer a thief attack (provoked, no less), but consider your own theft activities as above reproach. That seems remarkably hypocritical for a person claiming to represent the community's interests against tyrants who would bully, coerce, and intimidate us.