Meta Discussion

This is a discussion about discussions.  What ARE the rules?  Not what can be discussed but where are the limits outside the limits spoken of in the forum user agreement.  Here are some interesting questions:

1) If a speaker takes a position should is it proper to question their motives for taking the position they are taking?  In other words, in what ways to motivations inform our conclusions and is it possible for us to be objective enough?

2) Is it okay to call somebody a name if their is good evidence that they are engaged in the behaviors to which the name applies?  If I call you a butcher and you slaughter and cut up animals for sale, is that name calling?  What about calling somebody a "drunk" when they are always saying that they are "drunk?"  Where are the limits to labeling a person with a name?

3) If I say I don't feel you are correct, or I say I feel this way or that about a position, should your feelings be accepted as a form of "evidence?"  Should you, ethically speaking, even say something if all you have is how you "feel?" 

4) In what ways does a discussion become a war?  And if it does, should it spill over into the game?  Should people be punished in the game for what they say in the forums?  If so, does that not give control of the forums to the larger players and alliances?  Can they not censor a speaker who does not say what they say that speaker should say?

These are just four questions I'd like to hear your opinions on.  You may have other questions on the forums and how they work apart from the formal rules.  Do ask and respond as you see fit...within the boundaries of the rules, of course.

AJ

ok, to answer your questions in order

mmmmm maybe we should all remember its a forum about a pretend game...personally its hard for meto obey any rules except the ones outlined by the game and even those are hard to obey....we should be flaming each other! have fun and remember this is a silly game! party on!

I guess I'm more interested in civil discussions since I don't believe it's really possible to separate the real person behind the character from the character and thus, what I do to or in response to others here reflects my character in RL.  The idea that "it's just a game" is pretty much too often an excuse to engage in behaviors the person would never do in RL.. but because they can pretend that it's not a real person they are addressing in Illy, their are only the strictly defined "don'ts" of the user agreement.  This seems rather odd to me.  I don't think when a player gets upset it's a pretend character but a real person at the keyboard and I do think one must take that into account.

As for feelings not being evidence, of course feelings are evidence, especially to the one who is doing the feeling.  But what causes feelings anyway?  If I feel strongly about this or that reference point if I expect you to feel the same way and you don't should I be surprised?  And if I don't should you feeling about the matter be persuasive to me?  Somehow I think many quesitons must be discussed beyond the state of our current emotions.  To stay with feelings alone is to forget that we are also rational creatures and that there is a reality outside of our feelings that may be different from the perceptions upon which we may be basing our feelings.

It's interesting to me that several posts seem to think I'm asking about this sandbox.  A sandbox it may be, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have some level of civility for the very reasons just given: there are real people hitting the keys and whatever emotions they display in their words and actions those emotions are just as real as the player experiencing them. 

Thus, to my way of thinking, one ought to "consider also the things of others" in this cyberspace we share and remember you aren't really speaking to an Orc, Dwarf or Elf, or "human character" but to a real person.

A study was done where a large group of persons were given an online game and a "role" to play.  Many of the participants knew each other in RL.  They remained separate for the entire 48 hours of the game and at the end were asked to identify which character was being played by which person.   Almost all the players were identifiable by their friends even though they tried to play the character they were assigned and to hide their true identity.  From this the researchers conclude that we give all kinds of clues about who we really are in these games, an observation with which I concur as I've experienced it myself.

Thus, in the forums when we discuss we generally use the same approach to communication as we do in RL...meaning if we are unpleasant or vindictive in the forums we are probably so in RL at least to some degree.  It's food for thought, itsn't it?

AJ

Rule 7:  There is no rule 7.