| Author |
|
Rill 
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
 Posted: 13 Sep 2012 at 00:47 |
|
As long as it is not confused with any group of people who actually exist in the game, but is identified only with people's paranoid imaginings, it's fine with me.
|
 |
Aurordan
Postmaster
Player Council - Ambassador
Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
|
Posted: 13 Sep 2012 at 00:44 |
|
Good luck. It's too perfect a word. Meddlers is a different thing entirely, but we could try "meddling snugglers, at the risk of sounding like Scooby-Doo villains.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 13 Sep 2012 at 00:30 |
I would like to reclaim it.
snuggle -- v. tr.; To draw close or hold closely, as for comfort or in affection; hug
Please develop another shorthand for "an imaginary group of people that we don't like."
I think NC complained that Gim meddled. May I propose "meddlers" as the alternative term? It will cause less confusion and is less likely to be taken amiss by snugglers who basically want to mind their own business and whale on some dorfs once in a while.
Edited by Rill - 13 Sep 2012 at 00:40
|
|
Aurordan
Postmaster
Player Council - Ambassador
Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
|
Posted: 13 Sep 2012 at 00:24 |
|
The post I was originally responded to seemed to raise the hypothetical situation of a player that liked to snuggle but not fight. Also, I'm afraid the word may have escaped its original definition.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 13 Sep 2012 at 00:16 |
|
Snugglers have been known to behave in a diplomatic, friendly and respectful manner while slaughtering tens of thousands of dorf troops. I'd just like to remind people who think that "snuggler" and "fighter" are in opposition to each other of that fact.
|
|
Aurordan
Postmaster
Player Council - Ambassador
Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
|
Posted: 13 Sep 2012 at 00:10 |
 Vanerin wrote:
Aurordan,
If it involuntarily interferes with someone's reasonable enjoyment of the game, I am not cool with it. In your example of a "friendly" involved with a fight with a "militant", if the "friendly" did something to provoke the attack, the interference is not involuntary. But if a "militant" wants to pick on some "friendly" (without good cause) that interferes with the "friendly"'s enjoyment of the game.
What if we flip your example? You say "that a trader or magic specialist should be expected to be able to fight." Should a fighter be expected to snuggle?
~Vanerin |
Snuggle is a bit derogatory, but behave in a diplomatic, friendly, and respectful manner? Certainly.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 13 Sep 2012 at 00:10 |
I have a question: Just who are the snugglers who are saying there shouldn't be war? I haven't seen them in this thread, I haven't heard them in global chat.
I have heard people say that attacking people who don't want war makes things less fun for those people. I haven't heard anyone say that attacking people in general should not happen or isn't fun.
I have also heard people try to regulate who should or shouldn't be able to respond to defend those who are being attacked for fun. It seems that these are the people who are in actuality trying to make rules about who gets to fight, not the "snugglers."
It seems that there is a segment of people who think that it's perfectly fine for a group of warlike folks to pick a relatively peaceful party and make war on them. I actually don't have a problem with that -- or rather, I think it is a fairly shortsighted plan that tends to be unfun for other people, but I recognize it as an honest game strategy. What I DO have a problem with is the idea that no one else should intervene on behalf of the relatively peaceful group and strive to assist them. That to me is the height of hypocrisy. For shame!
Those who play the metagame to seek to prevent other people from interfering in their war are of course welcome to do so. Long live the metagame. But let's call a spade a spade and recognize it for what it is: A strategy intended to make it easier to win a war against an already weaker party by confusing the issue and making it less likely that others will take a stand. Probably a lot of people will fall for this because they are do not think it through clearly. Hopefully many will also see through it.
The question is: Is it right to stand up for people who prefer to play in peace? Is it acceptable to defend such people, if one wishes?
I contend that it is.
Edited by Rill - 13 Sep 2012 at 00:13
|
|
Princess Xanax
Greenhorn
Joined: 26 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 53
|
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 at 23:56 |
|
Trilllian, I don't believe the word "hate" was used in this thread until you used it.
|
|
bansisdead
Postmaster
Joined: 08 Jan 2012
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 609
|
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 at 23:33 |
|
Trillian, I have seen very little character assassination in this thread. Some have stated they like war, others not, some have declared their love for hugs, others have shown their dislike for such actions. I think your claim of a disturbing level of bigotry is a gross exaggeration and demeaning to real bigotry.
|
|
|
|
Trilllian
New Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Status: Offline
Points: 18
|
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 at 23:13 |
Frankly, I find the petulance and childishness displayed in this thread to be disturbing. But no more disturbing than the level of intolerance and bigotry I've read so far. "I hate snugglers because they snuggle!" "I hate war-mongers because they declare war!" So much black-white-thinking that the mind boggles.
I'm fairly confident that the majority of the people in this thread, and on GC for that matter, know who I am. I huggle/snuggle/hug with the best of them. I shout RAWR from time to time. I love chocolate and wait in line for cookies (or steal them). I have a front-row seat in the GC Gutter, and I've popped vats of popcorn. I've been in the top 10 in NPC killers on the Illy Board charts (7 days, 15 days and 30 days) for nearly 6 weeks now. I kick NPC butt and I enjoy the heck out of it. I help with the leadership of 2 alliances. I enjoy exchanging messages with my friends, visiting with folks on chatzy and on Skype, trading with my trading buddies and generally having FUN.
So, yeah, there's a war been declared. Okay. But is there any good served with dredging up old resentments and picking the scabs on barely healed wounds? Some folks take Illly very seriously, and that's their business. Others couldn't care less what happens in between their visits to the game. And many more fall somewhere in between. Each group is entitled to play the game, snuggle or not, declare war or not, gather resources and engage in global trading, or whatever else they choose to do with their time in Illy. The point is--we are all here for our own reasons and the fact that some may find a certain playing style incomprehensible does not give anyone the right to engage in character assassination and condemnation.
<plink><plink> My two cents' worth
Trilll
|
|
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/b/158119/av.jpg
|
|
Tweet
NC crusade vs. STEEL
Topic Options