Meta Discussion

ajqtrz wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that if somebody wants to play what Rikoo calls an "aggressive style" I need to play the "head in the sand stork" style.  In other words, the players of the game have no real say so about what that "aggressive style" means and if I don't have the power or the friends to defend me, well too bad for me?  Somehow telling players that if they want to play peacefully they have to restrict themselves to also being nice quiet people sitting in the corner doing but what you say they can do, "build their cities."  Of course, if they happen to build their cities in the wrong place, happen to say something, even in jest, in the wrong place to the wrong person, they risk the "aggressive play" because, well, you have determined that's how the game will be and is being played? Seems to me all I'm hearing is a circular argument.  "You must play this way because you must play this way."  How about justifying from an ethical framework why I should allow you to determine what the "right" way to play Illy is.  As for the forum being a part of the game, as I said in my post, even if it is, which I don't believe to be true, but even if it is, the ethics of "crossover" competition is not based upon any ethical standard of which I'm aware.  I laid out my ethical standard, how about somebody doing the same for the other side.  Start with the basis of your ethics and argue from that. As for the potential for having my work wiped out, I assume that my postings in the forums would be treated with civility.  The question we are facing is whether that assumption should be the standard of the forums or some other less tasteful standard should apply.  Much of what this and other discussions have talked about is the issue of civility in the forums.  I've laid out my ethics re why I think the forums should remain a civil "side" to the game, others have not yet done so. Finally, I'm in Illy.  I didn't plan to come here to start a bunch of debates, but when I saw what I saw I thought it was important enough to the community to take up.  When a person sees something he thinks is dangerous to the group would you really rather have him slip out the side door and not warn the group?  I think not.  So I bring up what I bring up and argue what I argue because I care about the community.  I assume you present counter-arguments for the same reason.  If not I would humbly suggest you move to a game where war is required and nobody expects it to be a sandbox. (see how the very argument you suggest by your statements can be turned around and logically applied to yourself?) AJ AJ

Illy is a sandbox game.  In many ways, politics in Illy progress as politics do anywhere. 

Of course there is a "meta" game underneath the visible surface, understanding it, or failing to, is often the path to success or "resetting" .....   knowing what buttons to press and what happens when they are , is simply a process of observation, understanding the currents of relations between alliances and individuals.

It is neither good , nor bad.. it simply .. is.

Big visible blunders, militarily or socially, happen when one ignores the "metagame" . . .  surprisingly just like in real life !  The wonders of a sandbox.  .  .

Tinkering in the "metagame" is actually reasonably entertaining for some...  ( given the stagnant state of Illy's evolution / 13+ month drought of Dev sponsored tourney action) . . . often more so than visible game itself....

View it all as a grand social experiment !

ES2.

If you think I'm suggesting something then you might be closer to the point than you think.  I'm arguing that it is the community of Illy that has the final word on what will be socially allowed (the "informal rules") and not the individual alliances.  It may be that the voice of Illy may eventually speak and say, "land claims are okay" or it may be that they are going to say "land claims be gone."  I'm hoping for the latter.  But it does not mean that the whole of Illy has to march it's armies and have a big war.  If enough people speak out and the reputation of the land claimers suffers (as it has already) or they come to see the logic of my and others' arguments against land claims, it may be that they just abandon the practice out of necessity or persuasion.  It does not necessarily mean an armed conflict...though, sadly, it does seem to be going that way.

AJ

Angrim wrote: ...Stomp is on the march to ensure that a different form is opposed.

Stomp is simply trying to enforce a zone 2 claim (prohibition of claims) throughout all of Illyria. Their "march" is a declaration of their intended land claim.

Calm down, Ash.  The tone seems to be saying the real person behind the avatar is upset.  Am I wrong?  Maybe that's why I care about the issue of land claims. Maybe I keep imagining what a player feels like when he or she is told to remove themselves or be removed, especially when the game allows for the move and some large alliance has decided for them where and where they cannot settle.  Such, even "in-game" threats seem to be to cross an ethical line.  You may like to read my latest installment in the thread on usefulness of land claims as it's a total recap of what I see as the argument FOR land claims.  Correct it where you will and can as I won't rebut it until it's can't be taken as a "straw man" I set up.

This thread, though, is about meta-discussion, not land claims....though of course that seems to be a hot topic and can serve as a nice "example" of both how too and how not to discuss things.

Maybe I did see the logic of their arguments but found a different set of arguments persuading me that there is a bigger picture or at least a different perspective here.  Maybe the arguments just weren't persuasive in themselves.  Should one simply say nothing when insufficient arguments are presented and let those, perhaps less informed, believe those weaker arguments?  I think not.  The point of discussion is to express perspectives and try to move people to your perspective...or to move yourself to a different perspective if the arguments warrant such a move.  Proper debate may be full of mistakes, anger, even silly things, but in the end the purpose is persuasion...a foundational value of most civilized cultures.  That the opposition to a position is unable to persuade their opponents means only one of three things: the arguments weren't strong enough (meaning the arguments of the opposition were stronger), the arguments weren't presented in a manner clear enough or basic enough to persuade (you should really think about this as you have to begin not what what you believe, but what THEY believe); or the debater has so much personally at stake that they cannot admit they are mistaken.  In civil debate it is not kosher to accuse your opponent of the last of these unless you can quote something he/she said like, "No matter what you say, I won't believe you!"...which is a dumb thing to say in my book.  That leaves the other two. 

I might suggest that the arguments for the opposition have not yet been as clearly laid out as they may think.  They are here and there and sometimes appear clearly, but they don't address the question is a systematic way, as I have attempted to do in my last post.  Remember, if you start with the same premises as I, and use perfect logic, you will arrive at either the same place as I or reveal how my logic is not logical.

But he who begins with faulty premises and has perfect logic will always end up in error.

AJ