| Author |
|
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 00:16 |
|
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 00:24 |
|
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 00:30 |
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 00:44 |
|
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 00:47 |
|
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.
|
|
Garth
Forum Warrior
Joined: 10 May 2012
Location: Somewhere, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 249
|
Posted: 13 Sep 2012 at 01:08 |
Gim is no snuggler, that's for sure. Setting up snuggling v. fighting, besides being irrelevant to the matter at hand, is ridiculous; this is a game, where military is one of the tools some people use to (hopefully) have fun. Snuggling is a fun way that some people show affection in chat. WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?!?!?!
If you don't find either one fun, don't participate in it. However, because this is a community, people who don't like fighting have to watch people fight sometimes, people who don't like snuggling have to watch people snuggle sometimes, and people who don't like bad grammar have to watch the improper use of your/you're and they're/there/their more often than the other groups put together 
As for the matter at hand, honestly, I tend to agree with the proposition that this challenge and stepping up to face it head on will be great for Gim and the STEEL alliances. Though I don't necessarily agree with all of NC's invective, I can appreciate that their actions so far have been relatively measured to reflect the dynamics of the alliances and the (standard) shades of gray that all us "commenters" like to ignore.
Armies are a tool. This is a game. No real damage is done unless there's no fun. If there's no fun, that means 1) people have not been respecting each other; 2) people have been taking the game too seriously.
|
|
Daufer
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 332
|
Posted: 13 Sep 2012 at 01:58 |
Rill wrote:
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. |
If they ASK for help, fine. That's the point. Is Gimardoran asking you for help? No? Then he apparently feels that he can handle it by himself, or that NC will get bored and quit if he doesn't respond. It isn't your place to butt in and say "uh uh, no hitting my little buddy". That's basically the same as saying "I don't care if you find him annoying or you think he is up to something sneaky, you better just ignore him because you can't do anything to him without my permission". Are you going to do this for everyone, or just the blessed handful?
NC claims that Gim is a schemer who annoys them and plots their downfall. That may not be entirely true, but I seriously doubt that NC just decided out of the blue to pick on poor innocent fluffy bunny Gimardoran. I seem to remember not so long ago that the crows were ready to string up Gim's friend Johnny112 for trying to stir up dissent against a certain one of their officers. I'm sure there was ample evidence... not that I ever saw it... but that doesn't prove that Johnny was more guilty than Gim so much as it demonstrates that Johnny sucks at cloak and dagger and isn't.
|
|
Vanerin
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 418
|
Posted: 13 Sep 2012 at 02:09 |
Myr wrote:
Vanerin wrote:
Faenix wrote:
|
Should a fighter be expected to snuggle? |
Fighters across Illyriad already deal with snuggling on a regular basis since it happens in GLOBAL Chat day in day out. How many snugglers have to deal with fighting on a daily basis? |
Hey. I gots an easy solution for you. "Block in chat"
Do you have a similarly easy solution for friendly people being attacked?
~Vanerin |
So people who don't like all the lovey-dovey shouldn't use chat? There is only one global and we all have to share it. Those same people shouldn't use there troops because others don't like it? The devs provided them in the game with the ability to use them, but we shouldn't use them because some poeple don't like it. Here's a suggestion, if you want to play the game the way you want to, then you need to extend the courtesy to others and you need to be prepared if those two ideas come into conflict with each other. |
I never said that those who don't like the lovey-dovey stuff should not use chat. Just if certain people annoy you, block them. If you do not want to see me snuggling, posting a link, or talking with friends, please please block me so you can enjoy GC. I also never said that armies should not be used. If fact, I said the oposite: "If there are people that wish to fight, then they should fight."
I would really appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth.
~Vanerin
|
|
Garth
Forum Warrior
Joined: 10 May 2012
Location: Somewhere, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 249
|
Posted: 13 Sep 2012 at 03:02 |
Daufer wrote:
If they ASK for help, fine. That's the point. Is Gimardoran asking you for help? No? Then he apparently feels that he can handle it by himself, or that NC will get bored and quit if he doesn't respond. It isn't your place to butt in and say "uh uh, no hitting my little buddy". That's basically the same as saying "I don't care if you find him annoying or you think he is up to something sneaky, you better just ignore him because you can't do anything to him without my permission". Are you going to do this for everyone, or just the blessed handful? |
Just because Gim has not publicly stated that he's secured potential help --if needed-- doesn't mean that he hasn't been in contact with people. In fact, based on his penchant for multiple chatzy's and making the rounds, I wouldn't doubt that he's either *requested* or *entertained offers* of assistance from multiple people/alliances. And yes, nCrow (you can see Harry and Rill's positions here clearly) is a likely candidate.
My only point being that making assumptions is not the best starting point to impress one's disproval. It's very easy in such cases to project prior situations onto the matter at hand, even if they're not completely relevant.
|
|
Tweet
NC crusade vs. STEEL
Topic Options