Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - H? attacking players at Standing Stones
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedH? attacking players at Standing Stones

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 89101112>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 5.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
LordOfTheSwamp View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Location: Swamp of Fyrgis
Status: Offline
Points: 481
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 20:59
bleedin' 'eck that was a ramble - sorry about that!
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.
Back to Top
StJude View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 21:31
Originally posted by LordOfTheSwamp LordOfTheSwamp wrote:


Not strictly fair. There's no reason to think that Kumomoto didn't sincerely mean that.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point I think. From where I am standing, there is plenty of reason to suspect that was not sincere. But I'll leave it be at that.


Originally posted by LordOfTheSwamp LordOfTheSwamp wrote:

Now in general, if I can adopt a slightly less combative tone that that which prevails (and which I may grumpily have contributed to - my apologies if I did so)...

This situation allows me to simultaneously ride my two current favored hobby-horses (neat trick, by the way, which should further my rodeo career if I don't damage my groin... but I digress...)

1)

There are lots of ways that Illyriad can be played. It has to be played as a city builder, but after that it can be played solely as a builder, or as a wargame, or as a trading game, and there are early signs that it might also in future be playable in other styles such as as a mystery game (note the Mysteries), etc. However, the wargame approach, as the rules stand, will always trump the others. So, in the tournament just passed, most players played the tournament as a solitary or alliance-based building and planning exercise, often deliberately avoiding conflict or changing their approach to accommodate their neighbors. H? (and, I infer, a couple of other alliances) chose to impose a wargame approach on this where "of course" PvP combat ensued.

Now, this wargame approach was not the only approach - there was no "of course" it should go that way. Rather than unsentimentally attacking smaller players, there was a collaborative / respectful / deferential approach evidenced up in Wolgast between Frost, Absa and PA (I had several conversations wherein people were seeking to avoid inconveniencing oneanother); and earlier in this thread a similar approach was referenced between WE and another player; most people seem to have taken this more laid-back approach.

There were two approaches. Nowhere is there a divine writ stating that one is right and the other wrong. But the fact is that the wargamers had the power to impose their approach on the others - on, I think, the majority. The more laid back types cannot impose their view on the wargamers. 

Now, in this instance I believe - and I may be wrong - that the wargame approach rendered the tournament less interesting. But it's too late to moan about that now, and honestly I don't think it's interesting. What is interesting is that in this, as in so much of Illy, there rules put all the power in the hands of the wargamers. Ultimately, they decide how things will unfold.

2)

H? are the feudal lords of Illyriad. They have just demonstrated that they do, excellently well, what feudal lords did to maintain power - and what the current setup of Illyriad requires that people do in order to hold a dominant position of power: they wield superior military force with superior skill.

This is not a sycophantic piece of flattery, fawning before the "glorious monarchs". It is also not some sort of liberal or Marxian critique leading to a call for revolution against the "unjust oppressors". It is just a statement of how things are.


The point that I am trying to make is that people should not over-react, either way. It would be more helpful, if before either slating H? too harshly, or contrawise disregarding all criticism of them, people were to understand the dynamics and different perspectives.

There are different approaches to Illy; H? do what they do, and personally I think it was to the detriment of the game in this instance, but that's just IMHO; and this neither makes them heroes nor villains.

With all due respect, I simply do not understand why you would write the above and be so ambivalent. There are several ideas here that are not subject to relativistic interpretation.

Sportsmanship has a definition, from that definition we can evaluate actions and see if they fit within the bounds of that definition. What is being argued here in this tournament is fairness or sportsmanship.

Is it sportsmanlike to squash a smaller players armies, simply because you have the military might to do so?
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 7078
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 21:35
One of the best stories of this tournament is that some of the most compelling action was outside of the big leagues.  A salute to the dedicated small to mid-sized players who fought hard, learned so much and did so well!  And congratulations to the devs for creating a tourney that allowed them to shine!
Back to Top
LordBliss View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Location: US
Status: Offline
Points: 65
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 22:22
[. There are several ideas here that are not subject to relativistic interpretation.

Sportsmanship has a definition, from that definition we can evaluate actions and see if they fit within the bounds of that definition. 
[/QUOTE]

This is kinda silly.  You seem to think that the term sportsmanship has an absolute definition, (which of course will be exactly the same as your idea of what it  is).  Apparently you believe this to the degree that you casually assert that there is "a definition" and that we all subscribe to it, and you don't even have to state what this supposed non-relativistic interpretation is.  We are not only to read your mind, but agree with it.

The fact is, the concept of sportsmanship is very much a relative term.  It means different things to different people at different times under different circumstances.  If you can't grasp that, your ego is probably using all the blood in your body, depriving your brain.  

If you pay me a nickle per description, i will describe instances where the concept of what is good sportsmanship or not can be viewed differently by people and reasonably by all.  You will end up owing me a million dollars.  


Back to Top
StJude View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 22:40
Human beings reason by means of concepts and definitions.

I can see you have a hard time being reasonable.
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 7078
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 22:43
StJude, you are the one who claimed that there was a single definition of sportsmanship without providing one.  If humans reason by means of concepts and definitions and you have not clarified what yours are, who is failing to be reasonable?
Back to Top
StJude View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 22:45
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

StJude, you are the one who claimed that there was a single definition of sportsmanship without providing one.  If humans reason by means of concepts and definitions and you have not clarified what yours are, who is failing to be reasonable?

1.) Please show me where I said there was a "Single" definition.

2.) Play on words, meet Rill, Rill, meet.....nevermind she won't get it anyway.
Back to Top
Createure View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 22:48
I like LoTS' breakdown there.

It seems the biggest issue in this thread [other than Truth+Judy doing their usual inflammatory anti-H? rhetoric] is not related to H?, peace and some other alliances engaging in direct competitive conflict during the tournament - but to do with a single attack by an H? member against tournament forces of a player in a lower league.

I don't try and pretend H? is perfect - we don't try and justify our actions with some 'moral code' that more often than not comes across as a poor excuse for furthering one's own goals than a genuine set of beliefs about the ever subjective 'right and wrong'.

I agree though with other people in this thread though that the attack in question was not wholly within the spirit of friendly competetivness within the tournament - a mistake if you like.

You guys with a bee-in-your-bonnet about this need to understand though that although people involved in this might admit a mistake was made - H? is not going to publicly denounce a good guildmate for a single mistake - and definatly not when several of the people shouting about this mistake on the public forum clearly have an ulterior motive than genuine concern for the well-being of a player they don't even know. Indeed the rhetoric seems even more thin when the victim of this mistake has shown such good-sportsmanship in their response to this already.
Back to Top
StJude View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 22:55
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:


I don't try and pretend H? is perfect - we don't try and justify our actions with some 'moral code' that more often than not comes across as a poor excuse for furthering one's own goals than a genuine set of beliefs about the ever subjective 'right and wrong'. 
 

You don't get off that easy, would I be right to assume you didn't read Honoredmule's letter justifying his attacks? If you didn't, it flies in the face of what you are saying here

Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

 
I agree though with other people in this thread though that the attack in question was not wholly within the spirit of friendly competetivness within the tournament - a mistake if you like.

You guys with a bee-in-your-bonnet about this need to understand though that although people involved in this might admit a mistake was made - H? is not going to publicly denounce a good guildmate for a single mistake - and definatly not when several of the people shouting about this mistake on the public forum clearly have an ulterior motive than genuine concern for the well-being of a player they don't even know. Indeed the rhetoric seems even more thin when the victim of this mistake has shown such good-sportsmanship in their response to this already.

No one asked you to publicly denounce the player in question. (although it amuses me that this line of reasoning was used when Azreil was on the hot seat.) Besides yourself, I have yet to see anyone in a position of H? leadership admit there was a mistake to begin with. (Although LordBliss would disagree as he seems to have a rather wide and fluid notion of what sportsmanship is)

What I do see is the 5 D's of dodgeball.....


Back to Top
Createure View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 23:02
Yeh the comparison with Azreil defending duq with the "we aren't going to throw a guildmate to the masses" line crossed my mind too judy. It seems like a favourite of yours to compare as much as you can to assorted VALAR incidents.

Perhaps you can't see the difference between 'one large guy knocking out the forces of a smaller player one time during a tournament for the furtherment of tournament goals' to 'one large guy constantly hammering/seiging all the cities of a small guy for weeks for no apparent justification other than a mixture of boredom/personal space'. I know I can see the difference between these two - and I suspect most of the rest of the community can too. I suspect you can too but it is convenient for you to try and draw these ill-thought out comparisons to try and further your inflammatory rhetoric.

And yes I did read HMs posts of course - and I realise that what I've said above differs. I am not a spokesperson for H? - I am just presenting an opinion for those who might wish to see things from a different perspective.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 89101112>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.