Meta Discussion

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

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 !

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

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

ajqtrz wrote: abstractdream wrote: ...and like baseball, if you lose in Illy, you play again. I understand the interest in posting in a forum discussion but it gets to a point where redundant becomes the nicest thing to say about it; eventually one is posting just to read what one wrote. Maybe evolve the discussion a bit? Try this one: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/elgea-and-bl_topic6440.html#87292 "if you lose in Illy, you play again?"  Let's see now....you are painting a wonderful painting and after six months of work I run over it with a truck..."but hey, if you lose it you can just repaint it!" right? It's always easy to tell a person to start over when it's not you who is doing the restarting.  Baseball has 9 innings (usually) and ends with one or the other teams is ahead.  Illy is an open ended thing that really doesn't end and so it is one ongoing game which, the longer you play, the more you have invested in time, energy, creativity --- and thus the more you stand to lose if you are driven out of the game.  And people have been driven out of the game. So let's evolve the discussion by admitting what many seem to want to minimize...the harm of having people destroy what you've spent months and years building, even if it's "just a game."  A painting, after all, is "just a painting."  Nobody who is a builder wants their buildings, real or imaginary, needlessly destroyed.  And at the same time some of us want to have a free discussion without risking more than our intellectual pride. I looked at the post and wasn't sure why it was relevant.  Perhaps I missed something.  I'll look again and let you know. AJ

First, let me just say that I have started over...not quite from scratch but I have been beaten down and come back.