Meta Discussion

Captain Kindly wrote: AJ, I really don't understand you, man. First you start a Crusade against alliances claiming a piece of land to ensure their own growth future, and in some cases (like SIN) that of their confeds. That is even older than my account is. You get reasonable and logical replies, and while you claim to understand them, yet you don't seem to be accepting them. Now you start about Metadiscussion, something probably even older than land claims. The whole Diplomatic page in Illy is just the tip of the iceberg there, and it always has been. That is the stuff Alliance Leaders do. Talking between leaders, either through IGM or Skype is more common than you think. Again, I have no idea what you want to achieve with all these long winded posts, except for trying to get the last word in. FWIW, during the last few weeks, I noted this stuff is downing the respect you have from other players a lot. It sure has been doing that for me. Maybe you should change your name into Don Quixote, and find yourself a Sancho Panza...

First, it's not considered good debating style to personally attack your opponent.  I regret your frustration but perhaps it would be better expressed in personal correspondence than in a public forum.  But to answer your questions, or at least the questions you imply (I think)....

The conclusion that the replies are "reasonable and logical" may be true as far as they go.  Logic is limited by the premises upon which it is based.  You may have noticed that not many have figured out that we are starting with different premises and thus, even if our logic is perfect, will probably arrive at differing conclusions.  Hopefully we can then discuss the premises upon which we base our conclusions...something I've repeatedly stated...though, to be honest, I've not yet couched the whole thing in terms of premises.

Second, do only alliance leaders discuss?  Is the forum only for alliance leaders?  My alt is the leader of an alliance...does that count?  While I'm certainly glad that alliance leaders talk, I wish to bring in all the players of Illy.  After all, they too should have a voice, even if it isn't one which marches in step to what their alliances leaders may or may say.

Calling me long winded is a negative comment.  Generally if one is considered long winded it's usually because he or she is making complex sentences where short ones would do.  I generally do write complex sentences, but in good discussion distinctions must be made and can only be made with proper grammar and syntax.  That often means more complexity in the argument and thus more complexity in the writing style.  I'm sorry if you have had some difficulty in stomaching that. 

As for getting the last word, should one quit debating in the middle of a debate?  If the debate is truly over then perhaps the audience should leave the one who will not shut up on the stage and leave the auditorium.  That people are reading and responding to my posts means they wish to have the last word, or I wish to have the last word, or the debate is not over.  I would suggest the last of these as the most probable. 

As for my reputation, I'm sorry your frustration over my utterances has caused you lower your expectations of myself.  Sadly though, you may just started with too high an opinion in the first place and now "the water is finding it's own level."  On the other hand, why do some continue to debate the issues?  If my reputation is sinking then obviously eventually I'll be writing to an audience of one...and empty auditorium.  So if you really think debate is over you can leave now.  After all, if your arguments have been irrefutable they, by definition, can't be refuted and why keep repeating yourself?  Leave me on the stage alone talking to myself...LOL.

Of course your response just emphasizes the reality that we are not avatars and it's not "just a game." Whoever you may be in real life you are the one feeling frustrated.  That's important.  We are dealing with human activities and thus, should act like civil human beings, despite what the game allows.  That's one of the premises with which I start.

AJ


Edited by ajqtrz - 19 Jun 2015 at 19:24

I think ajq thinks this is the Last Post Wins thread...  I must inform you that someone won that a long time ago!

ajq. ok since you really need proof of STOMP making a "zone 2" land claim as TVM uses the term lets see how TVM uses the term and then read the STOMP alliance profile

Utopian dreams of ideal debates resolving conflict is whimsical at best and presumes far too much of both sides.  it would be a uniquely rare event for the side losing the rhetorical debate to be aware of that fact let alone be willing to modify their behavior over it.  Far more consistent is the doubling down of irrationality and entrenchment of opposing views.

It also takes more than just being abstractly "right" to be able to actually carry that through militarily.  Just because someone may be (subjectively) "right" does not mean they have the political (or military) savvy to be able to achieve their goals.  Fools often rush in when prudence would suggest otherwise.

In illy there have really not been that many "big" wars, since I have been playing (Oct 2011), there really has only been 2 "world" wars, the "Consone War" and "The Great War" ,  a host of minor conflicts that all grossly pale in comparison.  The real holders of military might honestly do not exercise it very often, and tend to show amazing restraint in the face of often times great temptation. The blathering about the mightly constantly crushing the meek in Illy is pure fantasy. 

My heart truly bleeds for the oppressed in Illy...  who are they now? I seem to have missed the memo...


Edited by Mona Lisa - 22 Jun 2015 at 19:54

Mona Lisa wrote: My heart truly bleeds for the oppressed in Illy...  who are they now? I seem to have missed the memo...

Proof of bullying, threats, coercion and intimidation: