Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - When Gaming Gets Personal
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

When Gaming Gets Personal

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7891011 15>
Author
JodaMyth View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 29 Jul 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 62
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JodaMyth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2016 at 23:45
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:



Yes, you are right.  We can define winning the way others do or we can play independently and get out of the game what we want.  But of course, at one time it was "widely considered" that the earth was flat.  Sometimes things change.  

    That's a misconception, nearly all educated people believed that the world was round since the 3rd century B.C. (Thank you wiki & pedia ) 

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

   
Second, if I put a queen on the a checker board and am, therefore, not playing checkers, is it possible for me to play whatever game I wish on said board at the same time you play checkers?  If not, then the example is not parallel.  In Illyriad I can play my game the way I wish and you can play yours the way you wish.  If you go into a room with a thousand players  and there are a thousand checker boards laid out, can I play chess?  Does the fact that the other 999 are playing checkers mean that I'm wrong to play chess?  And if I actually reach "checkmate" does that mean I shouldn't claim I've won?
As to my style of play being "wrong" to the majority of players, I ask, upon what basis?  What moral standard can you point to, and what logical sequence of statements lead from that can you produce to show that my way of playing is "wrong?"  It's a moral question because you have made it one.  Now prove it.



    If you decide the rules of the game you can put whichever piece you want on the checkers board. A Queen, a playing card, some dice... you individually are determining that you are winning based on the game you have designed. Combining our analogies, with your self-determined play style you may consider yourself to be winning. Looking at the server as those 1k checkers boards, your towns, and by extension yourself, would be the "Queen" placed on the checkers board which are being removed from it and the players are currently watching you tell the people who say "You can't use a queen in checkers" being called bullies and threatening. You are right, there is no strict rules on how to "win" on a sandbox game, but much like playground games there are ones set up and recognized by the players involved i.e. tag, red rover, etc.  You are not playing Illyriad the game now, you are instead talking while most in-game assets you have are removed from you. Much like someone who was tagged before calling no tag backs I believe your words may be too late.

     Not to compare you to conspiracy theorist but there are people who fully believe we haven't landed on the Moon, they have faith in their own logic in why it never happened. Using self-described logic to make yourself right does not make you correct to anyone but yourself. Perhaps that is all you need but you will need more than your own personal logic to convince the masses you are the great messiah here to rid Illy of the evils of threats by coercion and alliances who are so questionable at war they broke all their blades before it even began.  Tongue

   
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:


My style is unusual.  I'm an unusual person.  My type of personality is less than .01 of a percent of the population so it's not surprising I play differently.  But the game allows even my style and since nothing I do interferes directly with your game, why interfere with mine by using intimidation by threats of coercion on the game board or in the forums for that matter?

Besides, when you reply to my post you've put your queen in my game and I do intend to eventually checkmate.

AJ

   I haven't intimidated or threatened you that I remember. Even when I was in an alliance that was at war with you I did not make any aggressive actions towards you.  Please save that "Stop bullying me" style of talk for someone else, I don't need to lower myself to making threats or intimidating you. I mean this as a non-threatening hypothetical, since I won’t actually do it, but if I truly wanted to attack and raze you, I wouldn't waste my time on here debating it; I would just do it. Alas I have chosen to play Illy in a peaceful manner and have been very successful... mostly... pretty...kind of.. well one razed players town but he really had it coming.  There may be a lot of NPC animals that may disagree with me being a pacifist but that isn't the point.    

 

    Since we are playing a game now... uhmm Pawn to B4 and do you have any 2's?  Stern Smile 



Edited by JodaMyth - 06 Feb 2016 at 23:59
Back to Top
Hyrdmoth View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hyrdmoth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 13:17
aj, who is intimidating you?

My (limited) experience of land claims is that if one asks nicely you can negotiate settling within another alliance's land claim. Your experience may vary, because people might decide they don't want to share their space with such a disputatious player.

This is also true, some of the time, for your much vaunted 10-square rule. Many people simply want to know, ahead of time, that you want to settle eight or nine squares away, and don't raise an objection.

Returning to the issue of the silversteel mine that I raised previously, I think you are hanging onto semantics by arguing that people who have occupied such squares with armies have "settled" those squares. The game sets a maximum occupation timescale of 14d 59m 59s on such armies. This is in no way analogous to a settled city which, after all, will take at least many months to develop.

The threat of force is quite explicit in the presence of an occupying army, which will kill miners of a player who is not in the same alliance (or one with a confed/nap with the alliance of the occupying player). In order for a new player to mine these squares they will have to do one of three things:

1. Join the alliance of the occupying player (or one of it's confeds/naps) and arrange a time to mine there with the owning player.

2. Negotiate mining access with the owning player, perhaps paying a fee to do so.

3. Fight with their own military forces to take control of the mine.

This is exactly the same situation as pertains with land claims, with one, fairly important, exception. Land claims are made publicly, and everyone can see what they are (thanks to an excellent map). Rare mineral locations are kept secret. Occupying armies, in my experience, often have large quantities of scouts in order to thwart the inquisitive diplomats of new players looking for the interesting rare mineral locations.

I don't complain about this - I see it as part of the game - but I think it points to a logical inconsistency in your argument.
Back to Top
ajqtrz View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 24 May 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 500
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ajqtrz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 16:56
Originally posted by JodaMyth JodaMyth wrote:

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

Originally posted by JodaMyth JodaMyth wrote:



Yes, you are right.  We can define winning the way others do or we can play independently and get out of the game what we want.  But of course, at one time it was "widely considered" that the earth was flat.  Sometimes things change.  

    That's a misconception, nearly all educated people believed that the world was round since the 3rd century B.C. (Thank you wiki & pedia ) 

I know, but was just using it as an example of something a lot of people thought that just wasn't true...like humors cause diseases, blood-letting, the earth as the center of the solar system, etc....the point being that a lot of things the group believes weren't true and not until somebody challenged those known facts were they shown to be untrue....and they sometimes paid a high price for doing so.

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

   
Second, if I put a queen on the a checker board and am, therefore, not playing checkers, is it possible for me to play whatever game I wish on said board at the same time you play checkers?  If not, then the example is not parallel.  In Illyriad I can play my game the way I wish and you can play yours the way you wish.  If you go into a room with a thousand players  and there are a thousand checker boards laid out, can I play chess?  Does the fact that the other 999 are playing checkers mean that I'm wrong to play chess?  And if I actually reach "checkmate" does that mean I shouldn't claim I've won?
As to my style of play being "wrong" to the majority of players, I ask, upon what basis?  What moral standard can you point to, and what logical sequence of statements lead from that can you produce to show that my way of playing is "wrong?"  It's a moral question because you have made it one.  Now prove it.
Originally posted by JodaMyth JodaMyth wrote:


    If you decide the rules of the game you can put whichever piece you want on the checkers board. A Queen, a playing card, some dice... you individually are determining that you are winning based on the game you have designed. Combining our analogies, with your self-determined play style you may consider yourself to be winning. Looking at the server as those 1k checkers boards, your towns, and by extension yourself, would be the "Queen" placed on the checkers board which are being removed from it and the players are currently watching you tell the people who say "You can't use a queen in checkers" being called bullies and threatening. You are right, there is no strict rules on how to "win" on a sandbox game, but much like playground games there are ones set up and recognized by the players involved i.e. tag, red rover, etc.  You are not playing Illyriad the game now, you are instead talking while most in-game assets you have are removed from you. Much like someone who was tagged before calling no tag backs I believe your words may be too late.

     Not to compare you to conspiracy theorist but there are people who fully believe we haven't landed on the Moon, they have faith in their own logic in why it never happened. Using self-described logic to make yourself right does not make you correct to anyone but yourself. Perhaps that is all you need but you will need more than your own personal logic to convince the masses you are the great messiah here to rid Illy of the evils of threats by coercion and alliances who are so questionable at war they broke all their blades before it even began.  Tongue

You cannot combine several games at once and expect any sort of cohesive understanding.  I could play Monopoly with checkers on a parcheesi board but it wouldn't make much sense.  You are still insisting that it's just one game.  I keep arguing it's multiple games in a single space and that the various games, because they have differing goals, will have differing rules.  I want to separate the games as much as possible by not allowing the tactics in one game to spill over onto players of other games.  That's why, in the 1000 board room, I have a separate board and do not put my queen on others' boards and expect that they will keep their checkers off mine.  If we happen to have our boards right next to each other I would expect that they would keep to theirs' and I to mine and not move my queen onto their board even when the squares line up.  That's the only way you can insure that everybody in that room can play their game freely.

I'm saying I'm not playing their game and the only time I interfere with their game is if they are interfering in mine needlessly.  If the intimidation by threats of coercion could be restricted to certain players, I'd have no problem with it as a agreed tactic between waring parties or warrior types.  But since the intimidation by threats of coercion is against all players it impacts all players and thus interferes needlessly with others' games on the playground.

And example:  I go to the playground to fly kites.  To do this you need a lot of open space without trees and the like.  I'm flying my kite and you come with your friends and want to play baseball.  If the field is large enough you can do so without interfering with me.  But if not, we have to compromise.  How we do that should not, I think, include you using intimidation by threats of force to get me to stop my enjoyment.  Nor should I not try to accommodate your needs.  It might be that I would move to the far outfield rather than stand by home plate.  It might be that you play the game around me somehow (if it can be done, it should be done).

You are right.  I'm playing my game.  I'm winning at my game.  And if people think that they can try to force me to play their game, they are wrong because the assets of which you speak aren't needed to win my game.  What's needed is for you, and the other players, to be rational and respond to the logic I've put forth.  Logically and systematically.  Begin, as I do, with your premises, lay out your logic and we can proceed to where it takes us.  If your logic proves stronger I will loose. And by logic I don't mean opinion, but demonstrable logic as in syllogisms or some other formal logic system. 

When you refer to "their logic" when referring to those who believe we've never been to the moon you should read Richard Hoefstater's The Paranoid Style in American Politics, Harper's Magazine, November 1964: http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/  In it he argues that the logic of such conspiracy theories isn't logic at all.  My logic is strictly formal and thus not opinion, as the "logic" of conspiracy theories is.  In fact, the point of the article is that conspiracy theorist actually attempt to present a case for logic of their position without laying it out step by step and with clear logical connections.  Do read the article as it's one of the landmark pieces in American rhetorical studies.

 
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:


My style is unusual.  I'm an unusual person.  My type of personality is less than .01 of a percent of the population so it's not surprising I play differently.  But the game allows even my style and since nothing I do interferes directly with your game, why interfere with mine by using intimidation by threats of coercion on the game board or in the forums for that matter?

Besides, when you reply to my post you've put your queen in my game and I do intend to eventually checkmate.

AJ
Originally posted by JodaMyth JodaMyth wrote:


   I haven't intimidated or threatened you that I remember. Even when I was in an alliance that was at war with you I did not make any aggressive actions towards you.  Please save that "Stop bullying me" style of talk for someone else, I don't need to lower myself to making threats or intimidating you. I mean this as a non-threatening hypothetical, since I won’t actually do it, but if I truly wanted to attack and raze you, I wouldn't waste my time on here debating it; I would just do it. Alas I have chosen to play Illy in a peaceful manner and have been very successful... mostly... pretty...kind of.. well one razed players town but he really had it coming.  There may be a lot of NPC animals that may disagree with me being a pacifist but that isn't the point.    

 

Originally posted by Ajqtrz Ajqtrz wrote:

If you are part of an alliance that has issued a threat to remove anybody they do not want in their claimed area they have issued intimidation by threats of coercion on your behalf.  If you truly oppose using intimidation by threats of coercion as a tactic you ned to consider leaving that alliance. 

In addition, "bullying" is not defined as only bullying when you actually USE force. The overt use intimidation by threats of force is bullying.  Again, if your alliance is overtly using intimidation by threats of coercion they are engaging in behaviors that fit a particular definition in the dictionary which I will refrain from spelling out lest somebody accuse me of name-calling.  But if it quacks, it waddles, and it's got webbed feet it isn't a turkey.

And when you say, "he had it coming" I assume you thought he was engaged in some kind of verbal or game related abuse?  And if so what would have called that abuse?  Maybe 'bullying?' or 'perhaps name-calling?', or 'trolling?'"  Whatever you would have labeled it, it would have been a negative label and you took action based upon that label.  And if you did, you did so because he or she was interfering with either your or somebody play. And if it wasn't yours, that somebody was probably smaller than the difficult person and you felt justified in your actions because that smaller player couldn't do it himself or herself.  What, exactly justified the razing of his towns?  I suspect it was behavior that was intimidating to others and may have indicated a threat of force?  How about clarifying the situation and seeing if you too, do not appreciate those types of tactics.  And if you didn't then, what has changed now?

The thing is, JodaMyth, if you live in a house of French speakers you may be expected to speak French.  If you hang out with people who would use overt intimidation by threats of coercion you will probably eventually become convinced such tactics are acceptable AND endorse them.  It's sort of like living in a French house, isn't it?  If you don't speak French, eventually you will.

Originally posted by JodaMyth JodaMyth wrote:


    Since we are playing a game now... uhmm Pawn to B4 and do you have any 2's?  Stern Smile 



I see your two pawns and raise you a fish. Sleepy

AJ
Back to Top
Tink XX View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tink XX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 17:50
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

But if it quacks, it waddles, and it's got webbed feet it isn't a turkey.


Indeed! It must belong to one of the 180 species from the order Anseriformes.Star
Back to Top
ajqtrz View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 24 May 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 500
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ajqtrz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 18:05
Originally posted by Hyrdmoth Hyrdmoth wrote:

aj, who is intimidating you?
Originally posted by Ajqtrz Ajqtrz wrote:


If you issue a blanket "if you enter my house I'll shoot you" you don't have to name every thief in the county.  The declaration that if you move into the claimed area without permission you will be removed is a blanket declaration and therefore intimidates me and everyone else who is not a part of that alliance. But it's really not about me. I'm fine where I'm at, and if others don't drive me away I'll be happy here in Almenly.   My opposition is the same opposition to the early Mal Mashians (however you spell that)

Originally posted by Hyrdmoth Hyrdmoth wrote:


My (limited) experience of land claims is that if one asks nicely you can negotiate settling within another alliance's land claim. Your experience may vary, because people might decide they don't want to share their space with such a disputatious player.

This is also true, some of the time, for your much vaunted 10-square rule. Many people simply want to know, ahead of time, that you want to settle eight or nine squares away, and don't raise an objection.

Returning to the issue of the silversteel mine that I raised previously, I think you are hanging onto semantics by arguing that people who have occupied such squares with armies have "settled" those squares. The game sets a maximum occupation timescale of 14d 59m 59s on such armies. This is in no way analogous to a settled city which, after all, will take at least many months to develop.

The threat of force is quite explicit in the presence of an occupying army, which will kill miners of a player who is not in the same alliance (or one with a confed/nap with the alliance of the occupying player). In order for a new player to mine these squares they will have to do one of three things:

1. Join the alliance of the occupying player (or one of it's confeds/naps) and arrange a time to mine there with the owning player.

2. Negotiate mining access with the owning player, perhaps paying a fee to do so.

3. Fight with their own military forces to take control of the mine.

This is exactly the same situation as pertains with land claims, with one, fairly important, exception. Land claims are made publicly, and everyone can see what they are (thanks to an excellent map). Rare mineral locations are kept secret. Occupying armies, in my experience, often have large quantities of scouts in order to thwart the inquisitive diplomats of new players looking for the interesting rare mineral locations.

I don't complain about this - I see it as part of the game - but I think it points to a logical inconsistency in your argument.


First, the claiming of the mines by occupying the mines is no different than claiming a settlement site with an occupying army. Both  have been allowed and both are actual occupations.  The same tactic could be used by the land claimers if they wished though it would be hard to figure out where they would get all those commanders.  It's actually an interesting idea since if they grabbed all the good sites in the "buffer zone" with armies it would be the same as using them on the mines.  The point is, the 7 food squares occupied by armies to save them for settlement is occupying them.  Claiming land you do not occupy or is not within the 10 square idea, is NOT occupying but occupying via intimidation by threats of coercion. 

So there are at least two differences.  First the mines are occupied.  If the land claimers wish to occupy the needed area, I've already said that is the right way to do it.  I don't care if they use armies spaced properly or not, it's part of the game mechanics and does not overtly use intimidation by threats of coercion.  The second way is exactly that.  If I'm occupying a space it may be a discouragement to you, but it isn't an intimidation by threats of coercion.  If you leave me alone on my space, there is no intimidation and the only coercion that could be used would be your choice to attempt to remove me.

The general rule in this sandbox, just as in any playground, is: if you're sitting in the swing you own the swing, but if you are not sitting in the swing you can't reserve it for when you eventually get there...the owner is the occupier.

So unless you can point to overt statements of intimidation by those occupying the mines (made before they did so, btw) then the intimidation by threats of coercion cannot be possible as there were no threats issued.

Thanks for your contribution as it certainly is a fresh approach.

AJ
Back to Top
JodaMyth View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 29 Jul 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 62
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JodaMyth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 18:06
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:


I know, but was just using it as an example of something a lot of people thought that just wasn't true...like humors cause diseases, blood-letting, the earth as the center of the solar system, etc....the point being that a lot of things the group believes weren't true and not until somebody challenged those known facts were they shown to be untrue....and they sometimes paid a high price for doing so.


     You aren't arguing for a fact though, you are arguing to support the playstyle you feel should be the best represented. I do agree with you to an extent, I personally don't care what players do as long as it is not effecting myself or my alliance. I do believe that someone should be accountable for what they say though. In the same way I think players should be allowed to play they want, I think other players can try to oppress or attack another player since that is within their scope of playing the game the way they want. You are not the Galileo of Illy. 

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

   

 I keep arguing it's multiple games in a single space and that the various games, because they have differing goals, will have differing rules.  I want to separate the games as much as possible by not allowing the tactics in one game to spill over onto players of other games.  That's why, in the 1000 board room, I have a separate board and do not put my queen on others' boards and expect that they will keep their checkers off mine.  If we happen to have our boards right next to each other I would expect that they would keep to theirs' and I to mine and not move my queen onto their board even when the squares line up.  That's the only way you can insure that everybody in that room can play their game freely.

I'm saying I'm not playing their game and the only time I interfere with their game is if they are interfering in mine needlessly.  If the intimidation by threats of coercion could be restricted to certain players, I'd have no problem with it as a agreed tactic between waring parties or warrior types.  But since the intimidation by threats of coercion is against all players it impacts all players and thus interferes needlessly with others' games on the playground.

  

That is to imply you are minding your own business. From what I have seen you have been playing with your queen on you checkers board and telling the other people playing their games that they should be doing it differently. You can't both expect to be left alone and try telling others what they should be doing. In your flying a kite to baseball example it is possible to share the space, but in Illy it seems more like you are bringing a cricket bat up home plate. I, for lack of a better analogy, have been flying my kite around for a long time on Illy and never had an issue with a baseball team messing it up.  

  
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

 

If you are part of an alliance that has issued a threat to remove anybody they do not want in their claimed area they have issued intimidation by threats of coercion on your behalf.  If you truly oppose using intimidation by threats of coercion as a tactic you need to consider leaving that alliance. 

In addition, "bullying" is not defined as only bullying when you actually USE force. The overt use intimidation by threats of force is bullying.  Again, if your alliance is overtly using intimidation by threats of coercion they are engaging in behaviors that fit a particular definition in the dictionary which I will refrain from spelling out lest somebody accuse me of name-calling.  But if it quacks, it waddles, and it's got webbed feet it isn't a turkey.

   I think once the use of force becomes involved it is assault. Since you enjoy bringing RL examples into this, if the country you lived in went into a war that you opposed, would you leave the country? Can you say with 100% certainty that your elected leader speaks on your personal behalf? Just because you disagree with something an alliance is doing does not take away from the reasons you have chosen to stay there. It is not always clear cut like that. 

  You were in an alliance that was fighting the one I was currently in. That would naturally make you my enemy wouldn't it? Yet I did not threaten you, let alone attack. I made it clear to you that I had no intention of doing so. 

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

And when you say, "he had it coming" I assume you thought he was engaged in some kind of verbal or game related abuse?  And if so what would have called that abuse?  Maybe 'bullying?' or 'perhaps name-calling?', or 'trolling?'"  Whatever you would have labeled it, it would have been a negative label and you took action based upon that label.  And if you did, you did so because he or she was interfering with either your or somebody play. And if it wasn't yours, that somebody was probably smaller than the difficult person and you felt justified in your actions because that smaller player couldn't do it himself or herself.  What, exactly justified the razing of his towns?  I suspect it was behavior that was intimidating to others and may have indicated a threat of force?  How about clarifying the situation and seeing if you too, do not appreciate those types of tactics.  And if you didn't then, what has changed now?

   That player had directly insulted, threatened and attacked/thieved/blighted my smaller alliance members. He had cursed at me several times in IGMs, there was a deep dislike of myself and my alliance (He just hates training alliances and has the temperament of a small foul mouthed child). I was in a different alliance visiting when his happened to engage in war with that alliance. I took it as an opportunity to remove a viable threat from the area of my alliance mates. 

     Like I said I have chosen to play Illy in a peaceful manner. All I can say about the case above is that even pacifists need to fight sometimes. I have gone the warmonger route before on previous game, for me it is a choice to how I play. I cannot condemn others for playing how they want. When compared to playstyles I have adopted in the past even the players attacking you have been nice up to this point. 

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:


The thing is, JodaMyth, if you live in a house of French speakers you may be expected to speak French.  If you hang out with people who would use overt intimidation by threats of coercion you will probably eventually become convinced such tactics are acceptable AND endorse them.  It's sort of like living in a French house, isn't it?  If you don't speak French, eventually you will.

I would know going in that I would eventually learn French and not try telling them to learn English to suit the way I want to live in the house. 


Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

Originally posted by JodaMyth JodaMyth wrote:

    Since we are playing a game now... uhmm Pawn to B4 and do you have any 2's?  Stern Smile 



I see your two pawns and raise you a fish. Sleepy

AJ

I found waldo and have rolled a 6.  Clap


Edited by JodaMyth - 07 Feb 2016 at 18:46
Back to Top
ajqtrz View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 24 May 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 500
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ajqtrz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 18:08
Originally posted by Tink XX Tink XX wrote:

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

But if it quacks, it waddles, and it's got webbed feet it isn't a turkey.


Indeed! It must belong to one of the 180 species from the order Anseriformes.Star


Well how about that.  You agree with me.  LOL

Yes, I knew that while it was logical, it wasn't air tight.  But it's is funny, at least to me.

AJ
Back to Top
Carbonara View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2015
Location: Perth,Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 27
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carbonara Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 2016 at 04:51
Is there a possibility that perhaps violent games don't cause violence, but violent people are more inclined to play violent video games?

Also, perhaps its not violent games that are the problem, but heated arguments on the forums (and global chat) of delightful games like this one. lol

Ying Yang
Back to Top
ajqtrz View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 24 May 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 500
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ajqtrz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 2016 at 18:22
Originally posted by JodaMyth JodaMyth wrote:


  You aren't arguing for a fact though, you are arguing to support the playstyle you feel should be the best represented. I do agree with you to an extent, I personally don't care what players do as long as it is not effecting myself or my alliance. I do believe that someone should be accountable for what they say though. In the same way I think players should be allowed to play they want, I think other players can try to oppress or attack another player since that is within their scope of playing the game the way they want. You are not the Galileo of Illy.


Let's talk about "play style."  In many, many games somewhat like Illyriad there are players who have an "aggressive game play" style that allows them to intimidate by threats of coercion.  Most of us have run into games where that is the dominant play style.  Are, on the whole, those games friendly to those who wish to be far less aggressive?  Is it not true that even in games where there can be multiple goals (like here and LoU, for instance) that the "aggressive game play" can get out of hand?  Is it not true that those type of players generally develop a definition of "winning" that may not be that of all players, but does become the dominant measure of the game.  Look at what I've said about my own definition of winning and see if you are laughing.  If you aren't, you are probably in the minority.  You see, it begins with the community giving into not only the methods of "winning" but also the very measure of what it means to "win" in the sandbox. 

Look at the large alliances and ask if one reason they aren't willing to actually take a stand is because they've let the idea of being a "ranked" alliance become the only "win" that matters?  I've spoken to more than one leader of those alliances and the ones to whom I have spoken are pretty much against intimidation by threats of coercion.  But of course, it might cost them the "win" if they actually send troops into the battle.  In the end, that makes them, and all of us, "losers." 

You see, the "aggressive game play" is okay if it's in a game where it's the only style allowed by the rules or the conventions of the game players.  Most "sandbox" games get to that style with it's "proper measure" of "winning" pretty fast.  Illyriad has been almost unique in that early on the players rejected intimidation by threats of coercion.  They fought a long war over it and "removed" those who would use that tactic, especially against small players and alliances.  That's the history of Illyriad.

Today we face a new wave of "aggressive game players" who wish to tell all of us that domination is the point of the game.  They wish to, both by example and by intimidation, get us to buy the idea that domination is the only respected measure of winning.  But I do not wish to make that the sole measure of winning and to provide for other respected avenues and goals.

Let's turn back to the history of this game again.  Let's ask ourselves of whom we are most proud?  Who is spoken of win respect and is most responsible for the meta-game we enjoy today...the one where friendliness and helpfulness by so many is such a shock to new players who have often left other games like Illyriad out of frustration with the intimidation by threats of coercion -- the "aggressive game play" style.  In the end you can dominate the map for a bit or go down in history for keeping Illyriad the friendly, un-intimidating place it is.

I to "don't care what players do as long as it is not effecting myself or my alliance" but unfortunately it is.  It is effecting you and your alliance, indirectly now, but directly in the future.  Do you really think the idea of "domination" will be only for a small piece of BL?  Once established there do you really think they'll all settle down and play nice with you?  The point of "aggressive game play" is domination of EVERYBODY and the use of intimidation by threats of coercion will be used wherever it can be used...which means at your doorstep at some point.  More to the point though, even if it isn't directly effecting you now, it is and will do so in the future at least by discouraging growing payers and by encouraging the use of intimidation by threats of coercion in those new players.  It's a bit like a disease in that once you let it become okay it spreads.

As for accountable for what they say, well, I'm not surprised.  I am accountable for what I say.  The question is not if a person should not take responsibility for what he or she says, or is not accountable for it, it's if what was said justified corporeal punishment, and to what extent.  My belief is that the punishment should fit the crime, both in style and duration.  Not sure how that translates to this game, but I suspect kicking somebody back to the newb ring a bit harsh especially if he or she mends their ways.  What do you think?

Yes, other players can "try to oppress or attack another player."  I've never argued otherwise.  But the history of the players of Illyriad disagree with you on this, or at least the winners of the battles over the issue.  They decided that new players should not be oppressed.  They decided the 10 square rule should be respected as a way of reducing the oppression (so that cities could not be put down next to smaller players cities and those cities besieged and captured, among other things).  Thus, while oppression is possible by the game mechanics, the meta-rules seem to think that it's not a good thing to use without some restraint.  In the past some of the larger alliances banned together to establish the meta-rules because they felt they were good for the game (and possibly, though I don't have any evidence for this, for them as well). 

But more to the point is that if you allow oppression you change the game into a single play style game.  Oppression means you are either dominated ...which means controlled....or you fight...which means a military.  The sandbox does not require you play those styles, but by allowing oppression you will be required to leave or become a fighter.  This is especially true if you take strong stances in the forums of course..Wink

When you say I'm not "minding my own business" and that I have been "playing with [my] queen on [my] checkers board," you may be right.  But it's MY checkers board, so if I want to put my queen on it, what's it to you.  But of course, your beef is that you suppose I'm "telling the other people playing their games that they should be doing it differently." 

You would be right about the cricket bat to home plate if the forums were home plate.  You would be right about that if I were sending armies out to force players to play my way.  Neither is true or has ever been true.  If I were big enough to do that I might, since my opponents have decided that "words have consequences" I might be tempted to respond to their words in the same manner they have responded to mine...I MIGHT, but probably wouldn't as I believe in the sanctity of debate.  What is said at the podium stays at the podium and you don't have the right to punch your opponent in the mouth in the hallway because he implied something about character in the debate.  The only justifiable answer to an insult is the truth presented at the podium.  That's my belief and others' have less forgiving positions.

But of course, "minding my own business" is exactly what I'm doing.  It's my, yours, and every players business to pay attention to the overall health of the game and to protect that health either by engaging in positive actions or by refraining from negative ones.  When one side won't engage in positive actions to protect the game, the other side will engage in negative ones at will.  Nothing need be done if freedom is worth nothing.  So I am, and you are, minding our business.  I do it here because that's where I do it best.  Others may have, and probably will have, other venues where they can get involved.  My hope is that HERE we fight the fight and HERE we all decide to make the health of the game our primary concern when in the game.

Let's go back to the room.  1000 checker boards.  999 are playing checkers.  1, (me) playing a strange game of my own design.  I say, move my queen a couple of spaces.  How does that interfere with the other 999?  It doesn't.  So one of those players tells me that I have to play checkers I ask, why?  Then, when he tries to threaten me, I get a bit upset.  

Your perspective imagines everybody playing the same game on the same board, but, in essence, we play different games on the same board at the same time.  To do that we must be a bit accommodating of other gamers.  We must refrain from making them play our game.  We must refrain from interfering with their game as much as possible.   You think that my writing in the forums and occasional discussions in GC is interfering with their game?  How so?  Am I the one using intimidation by threats of coercion?  Am I the one telling them they can't play PVP?  I deny both charges.  I'm not dictating to them, I in the process of slowly, and tenaciously convincing them to change their perspective.  And for the most part, I'm doing it in a place where they have no need to go....so if they are reading this, they choose to read this.

That is to imply you are minding your own business. From what I have seen you have been playing with your queen on you checkers board and telling the other people playing their games that they should be doing it differently. You can't both expect to be left alone and try telling others what they should be doing. In your flying a kite to baseball example it is possible to share the space, but in Illy it seems more like you are bringing a cricket bat up home plate. I, for lack of a better analogy, have been flying my kite around for a long time on Illy and never had an issue with a baseball team messing it up. 

I'm glad you have been able to fly your kite for years.  A lot of players have been flying their kite freely for years too, but that's only because somebody made some meta-rules about not preying on small players a long time ago.  Somebody kept the playground safe from the intimidation by threats of bullying.  Somebody "stepped up to the plate" and "hit a home run" and Illyriad is all the better for it.  But once you allow intimidation by threats of coercion will you still be able to fly your kite anywhere you wish?  Will you be as free then as you are now?  I don't think, in the long run, you and your alliance will be.  Not because the current crop of users of intimidation by threats of coercion are bad people, but because we just don't know who will join next week.  If they arrive and find the tactic acceptable under what circumstances will they decide not to use it?  If it's meta-game okay, it's okay, and that is the first step to domination of ALL players, small and large, new and old.

If my country were wrong and doing something that I thought had a good chance of putting it on to the path of extinction, and if all it took was not moving but changing political parties, you bet I'd "move."    If intimidation by threats of coercion is not harmful to the retention of players, if intimidation by threats of coercion did not, in other games, destroy those games, if intimidation by threats of coercion did not cause unneeded stress of other players, then I would probably not oppose it's use.  But it is harmful to the game.  It has caused other games to fold.  AND it causes unneeded stress to other players.  No person is wise who keeps to the company of those who do not care and who only look out for themselves.  We are in this game together and to be together we need to work together to insure that the game stays healthy.  That is what makes us Illyites and what makes Illyriad different.


You describe the player you attacked as one who had "directly insulted, threatened and attacked/thieved/blighted" others.  The question is, did the punishment fit the crime?  You took up arms and removed the player because of the harm he was doing to others even when he was (I assume) asked to stop.  In other words, he was unrepentant. Right?

Now here's the thing, did the punishment fit the crime?  If he was unrepentant then he could not be corrected.  If he could not be corrected AND his actions and attitude were driving others from the game or causing them undo stress, then you had no choice but to take up arms.  For it is the responsibility of ALL player of Illyriad to first and foremost keep the game healthy for ALL the players.  You, in my opinion, therefore were doing your duty.  So why do you think it any less you duty to resist alliances who would like to play with the same unbridled aggressive game play style?  You can say they haven't done anything, if you like, but the fact is, they've overtly introduced and are trying to make permanent, a tactic that has destroyed more games than can be listed.  They are introducing an "aggressive game play" style which says, "win at any cost" and "winning is dominating everybody." 

Choosing a play style is a personal thing.  I choose the peaceful one because that's what I like.  But, as you say, even pacifist sometimes need to take up arms.  You say you've been more aggressive in some games, and I don't doubt it.  But here's the thing, I would guess that in those games the "aggressive game play" style was already deep-seated and accepted so you really didn't have much choice.  Most games are like that.  They start out an open sandbox and end up with "domination of the sandbox by any means necessary" the final and only game style really allowed (everybody knows that in general the traders and crafters are considered second class citizens in most games).  Illy is different because is has resisted that curve.  It has resisted the same path for six years and if we are quite lucky will continue to do so now.  Hopefully by persuading those who would steer us to the path of extinction to turn with us away from the domination of the aggressive game play style.  But even if you did play that style in a game where other styles were allowed and attempted, do you now think what you did was without effect on others and the game?  Do you think that style helped that game be more friendly to more people?  If not, then it is you who must make a choice about how you play games in general.  You either have to decide that what you do in the game counts because it is being done to real people, or it doesn't and that the friendly and open nature of this sandbox is not worth saving.

There are many houses in Illy.  Not all of them speak French, but you may think so if you live in a French house.  I say move to an English speaking house...one which stands for freedom and the health of the game, and out of the French one which seems to think that domination is the only allowable language in Illyriad.

If they kick me back to the newb ring will you call me Galileo?  LOL

I play a "reverse" card from Sorry.

AJ

Back to Top
ajqtrz View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 24 May 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 500
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ajqtrz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 2016 at 18:57
Originally posted by Carbonara Carbonara wrote:

Is there a possibility that perhaps violent games don't cause violence, but violent people are more inclined to play violent video games?

Also, perhaps its not violent games that are the problem, but heated arguments on the forums (and global chat) of delightful games like this one. lol

Ying Yang


That people who are violent offline and also online is probably is probably a given.  But "violent in real life" is a bit miss-leading as their are degrees of violence and most people can be driven to violence in the right circumstances.  The question is, is there a relationship between an increase in violent behavior (in all it ranges of display from unkind words to murder) and the duration and amount of online violent video game playing...and again there is a range of "violence" in online games, with "Pet a Bunny" at one in and "Slaughter Everything" at the other.

And no doubt there is more "violence" in the game due to the heated exchanges in the forums.  It is difficult to deal with "cross rational" behavior as some people don't make clear distinctions between the game and the forums and others' do.  It is, in some ways, the same problem.  Some want to force me to play the "debate" game I'm playing here, with the rules of the actual game when the actual game was never designed for that...but then again doesn't prevent it either.  I wonder if I came to their physical location with a bullhorn at 3am and started my "preaching" if they would appreciate that "cross rational" behavior as well.  I doubt it.  One of the false distinctions people make here is the distinction between "physical" pain and "emotional" pain.  The body doesn't really know the difference and releases the same chemicals in the presence of either to a great degree.  Thus, to cause undo pain here is very, very close to my preaching in their driveway at 3am.  Once you begin breaking down the false notion of double anonymity and realize you are really having effects on real people, your own sense of fairness and decency begin to exert themselves and you no longer feel so smug using intimidation by threats of coercion and even less about the honor of attacking people for what they say in the forums and with overwhelming forces too.

AJ
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7891011 15>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.