Meta Discussion

"i do hope someone eventually starts a genuine discussion of the merits of these things"  ....it's in "Are land claims good for Illy?"

Hope that helps.

In the end this discussion is about ethics.  Do you wish to be ethical and to follow the traditional rules of debate, where evidence is verifiable, presented when requested and especially civil?  Or do you think of debate as a verbal brawl preceding the physical one?  One of the things I've often pondered is the advantages from an evolutionary perspective, of the use of language in place of physical conflict.  It would seem to me that in a social group where differences of opinion resolved by words rather than clubs would naturally have a lower mortality rate...meaning it would be "more fit" and thus survive more.  Of course, the barbarian in the corner may not like that idea that he can't use his club to make decisions for others, but collectively the cave group is stronger than he, and thus, as I like to picture it, the use of language to settle differences evolved. 

In any case, part of the process by which we substitute verbal contests for physical ones is the development of an understanding that the club speaks bluntly but never answers the question while the words can, with enough patients and work, do so.  And in this way "the pen is mightier than the sword."  At least in the long run I would hope.

As for something somebody said earlier about my approach being a bit "unreal" and "idealistic" (my words, not theirs), I suspect that is true.  But I've always felt that reaching for the stars you cannot reach may at least get you to the moon, while reaching for nothing always leaves you in the shadows.  Your feet may be on the ground but you never soar that way.

So "real life" isn't perfect.  Why not nudge it in the right direction?  If you really want a challenge, try that.

AJ

ajqtrz wrote: In the end this discussion is about ethics.  Do you wish to be ethical and to follow the traditional rules of debate, where evidence is verifiable, presented when requested and especially civil?  Or do you think of debate as a verbal brawl preceding the physical one?

If I were to "fold" because even on diplo attack was successful that would mean I think the answer to intellectual questions should be decided by force of arms.  That would be unethical of me and thus, "Are you kidding?"

More to the point though, is that you actually think, or at least imply, that I SHOULD do so.  Maybe you didn't mean to imply that?  So what is your opinion on the relationship between civil discussion and force?  Are you of the opinion that discussion is must polite force?  And more importantly, SHOULD it be, and if so, why? (I taught English Composition so of course any "yes/no" questions are followed with, "why do you think that?"  LOL).

AJ

Jane DarkMagic wrote: ajqtrz wrote: In the end this discussion is about ethics.  Do you wish to be ethical and to follow the traditional rules of debate, where evidence is verifiable, presented when requested and especially civil?  Or do you think of debate as a verbal brawl preceding the physical one?  When the debate involves the nature of decision-making in a mmorg, armies definitely should be involved.  Players who feel passionately should garner allies on their side of the conflict and try to settle it using the mechanisms provided in the game.  STOMPS and the land claimers are in the midst of such a battle right now, and I don't think it's fair to belittle their means of resolution just because you can't contribute anything meaningful to it.

As usual, Jane, you have side stepped the issue of WHO is playing Illyriad in an effort to blend the fantasy of the game into an irresponsible position.  "[T]he nature of decision making" is that it is done by humans...either programmed by humans into an AI, or by actual humans.  By saying that mmorg armies should be involved you are saying, in essence, that force is okay in any debate.  So you would have to say, if you are consistent, that if you and I are playing Monopoly and I don't like what you are doing, I can reach out and punch you. I weigh 270 and am an athlete with a lot of ring experience.  You, if you are a woman, would probably not survive.  So is that okay?  But you say, "it's just a game..." To which I say, no, it's PEOPLE playing a game.  And PEOPLE should matter more than your desire to win at any cost.

It is not a "debate" if you use force, game force or real.  Here is a definition:

"Debate is ..... to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.)"  And it is a mechanism of the "meta-game" too.  But debate is not to sending armies, to physically attack, or otherwise use non-communication methods to attempt to inflict harm on another in order to get your way.  That is what immature juveniles and rebels do.  The juveniles may have the excuse that they are immature, the rebels, if part of a political rebellion, may have an excuse too, but they should, as the revolutionary leader of the US did when they rebelled, give good reason for their rebellion.  Barring that most of us are not juveniles or part of a revolution, we have little to no reason to use physical or in-game force to "win" an argument.  Of course we sometimes do it, but that doesn't make it either logical or ethical.

The only way you can justify using in-game force to "settle" a debate is if you live in a fantasy world where all the players are not represented by their avatars, but are actually only avatars --- pixels on the page, and not real people.  Are you willing to lie to yourself and claim that you, the real person behind the avatar, are the only one playing and thus need not concern yourself with how you treat others?

Ultimately debates in Illyriad forums are a social interaction involving two or more individuals who are discussing a question.  The discussion may take unusual turns and it may even become heated.  But it's a debate, not a war.  Choosing to make it a war because you can't convince others of your position and FEEL like the other side is winning, is refusing to actually debate the question at hand and instead substituting, "who has the bigger armies" for the question, whatever it might be.  It is a cowards way out.

As for belittling STOMPS position, I don't think you understand what you are saying.  First, STOMPS did not start the war, the land claimers did by intimidating other players with threats of coercion.  That's the core definition of "bullying" from the dictionary.  So it is the land claimers who launched the first attack by taking the right of settlement granted by the game away from most players.  And they did it by bullying.  You don't reward bad behavior by being polite.  You first try to convince those who are doing the bad behavior that it is such.  Which I have done with a lot of passion and logic.  Then, you try to offer them an option by which they can get what they want without the bad behavior.  Which I have offered over and over.  Only after they fail to see that their behaviors are bad, refuse to refute your logical position.... even when you outline their own logic and refute it point by point...and then refuse to actually discuss the issue except to issue threats of coercion.... then you have a case for armies.   It may or may not be that STOMPS started too early.  It may or may not be that they didn't have the muscle necessary to "convince" the recalcitrant land grabbers and bullies, but they at least didn't sit on the fence afraid of the that dealing with the bullies might hurt their standings and actually cost them something.  I applaud them for that.

And your attack on me when you say, I "can't contribute anything meaningful to it" only shows how shallow your view of the power of debate.  Do you really think we would be here if I hadn't spoken up loudly and with all the force of words I can muster?  Do you really think the Illyriad Time would call me the "thought" behind the anti land claim coalition?  Do you really think Broken Blades launched their war on my little alliance, which is surrounded by land claimers and separated by thousands of squares from any support, because I had nothing meaningful to contribute?    The current war between B!B and HIGH is nothing more than an attempt to coerce a successful debater because those on the other side have failed to win the argument and have nothing left but armies and petty excuses.

Stop living in a fantasy world where the only player is yourself and every other avatar is an imaginary being made of pixels on the page you can treat as you please, with intimidation, threats and coercion -- bullying.  And stop hiding behind your vast armies...force is the last resort of a cowardly debater. The cowardice is almost always not the physical kind but the intellectual kind in that he or she has insufficient reason on his or her side but is afraid to admit it and change their tune.  In debate the sides keep debating until the judges, or the audience is convinced of one side or the other.  The debater who leaves before the debate is over is usually the one who has become frustrated because he or she doesn't have the reason and evidence necessary to overcome the other side. 

Now, take a breath and answer this question: "If the players of Illyriad are real people how OUGHT they be treated?"  Let's see your courage.

And finally, don't bother with the trite and silly "I'll send my armies at you"  It sounds way too much like junior high and I assume you and I are way past that level of immaturity.

AJ

This entire debate boils down to a disagreement over whether the meta-game is subordinate to the game, or vice versa.

AJ is arguing that because the game involves people, the feelings of those people should come before the game. Disputes in the meta-game should therefore be resolved exclusively in the meta-game, and not via in-game mechanics. In essence, this viewpoint regards speech as absolutely protected. In-game retaliation to meta-game disputes is equated to be the same as bullying or a physical attack.

The other participants are basically arguing that the meta-game is an extension of Illyriad, and is therefore subordinate to the game. Meta-game disputes are therefore akin to poker table-talk or athletic trash talk. Even though they consist only of words, the meta-game arguments do not exist separately from--or take precedence over--the oft-competitive game of Illyriad. Resolution of disputes via in-game mechanics is a perfectly sensible outcome to both in-game and meta-game disputes. In-game battles should be reasonably expected by all participants of both the meta-game and the actual game itself. In essence, nobody cares about negative feelings in a football game that result from playing the game. If you trash talk somebody and they tackle you hard on the field, that was to be expected. To this way of thinking, there is no venue where table talk and trash talk are protected from in-game retaliation.

In my personal observation, it is wholly impractical to maintain the former viewpoint in a video game where many players (and quite possibly the majority of players) have taken the latter stance. It is also worth noting that players have a spectrum of reactions based on the perceived offense of the table talk, influenced by their personal beliefs as to the basic relationship of the meta-game and actual game. Disagree politely and most Illyrians will condemn an in-game clash. Trash talk hard enough, and nobody will be surprised when your cities are attacked.

To AJ, an in-game clash will probably always be cowardly and bullying.

To the heavy PvP gamers, an in-game clash is just business as usual in a game about cities and armies.