Smorgasboarding: Pros and Cons
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: The Caravanserai
Forum Description: A place to just chat about whatever takes your fancy, whether it's about Illyriad or not.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=6404
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 16:22
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Smorgasboarding: Pros and Cons
Posted By: Rill
Subject: Smorgasboarding: Pros and Cons
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 01:53
|
Edited to add: In case anyone is lost, this discussion is related to comments that were made here: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/are-land-claims-bad-for-illy_topic6362.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/are-land-claims-bad-for-illy_topic6362.html The use of words in language is not a static thing, and I do not read in the Code of Conduct or Rules anything that would prevent people from using a word in a sense with which the developers do not agree. The forbidden activities are as follows:
The developers have clarified that just because something is not against the rules as outlined does not mean that they cannot forbid it in the future. In this case, apparently GM Rikoo has made a ruling about how the word "bullying" or words derived therefrom are to be used on the forum. While this rule may seem to be completely arbitrary, this means that we shall have to come up with an alternative description for "behavior that attempts to intimidate players, through in-game means, from expressing opinions that are negative or otherwise disagreed upon between the parties." I propose the word "smorgasboarding." Apparently ajqtrz believes that someone is smorgasboarding him related to opinions he has posted here. I am interested in what people think of that and will start a topic on the subject in order to avoid taking this thread off its intended course.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 01:58
|
It has been established in another thread that when players seek to intimidate other players through in-game means such as diplos, sieges, refusing to trade, sending large numbers of useless goods, etc., based on comments that have been expressed in chat or on the forum, we may not call that bullying. I have suggested the alternative term "smorgasboarding" to refer to this behavior in the future. The perpetrator of such an action would be the smorgasboarder. So ... what do people think ... is it generally desirable to retaliate for differences of opinion through in-game means? Or are such differences better resolved through dialogue? Would you employ smorgasboarding? Under what circumstances? Are there any situations where smorgasboarding might cross a line that would cause you to disapprove? What if someone smorgasboarded a new player? EDIT: I moved this to this thread because it was off-topic in the other one. - Rikoo
|
Posted By: Llannedd
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 02:20
| Anything permitted by the game mechanics and not prohibited by the ToS is perfectly acceptable. If people get offended or upset, they can always play Farmville instead. The word "bullying" is used so much here, for things that are ridiculously insignificant, that it has become meaningless. |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 02:27
|
It seems natural that trash talking in a video game could lead to in-game action. That's been the norm in every other MMO that I have ever played. Illyriad offers a range of retaliation from the mostly harmless (blights, feints) through annoyance (thieves, saboteurs, attacks) all the way through to destruction (sieges). It doesn't seem reasonable for people to exchange some insults in GC and then get razed back to the ring. But if people are verbally pushing and shoving, then a little in-game pushing and shoving seems natural. If the trash talking escalates, then the in-game action can escalate as well. Honestly, I'd rather people resolve some tension via battle in the game, rather than bellowing at each other in GC or the forums. The screaming matches are what made the last big war so tiresome. Smorgasbording a new player is more suspect. If they are trolling GC and acting like barbarians, then sure, smorgasbord them with diplos and armies. Razing seems completely unnecessary in that situation. |
Posted By: GM Rikoo
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 03:07
|
I did not say you COULD NOT call it bullying. If I seemed to say that at some point, I apologize. EDIT: If you read carefully what I said, you will see that I am simply saying that whether or not the in-game "bullying" can be defined as bullying doesn't matter... because it's in game. If it extends to REAL LIFE threats or intimidation -- something that you would find in, say, a real life situation like grade school -- then it is the type of bullying I will not tolerate. If you needed clarification, this is from my earlier post: "You can say the in-game combat is bullying as well, I don't care. The point is that there is a very REAL result from one, and the in-game result from this one. In-game results do not affect you in real life in any way that I can help." If you have any other questions about rules, fine, but do not troll threads. If you do, you risk deletion/banning from the forums. GM Rikoo
------------- Illyriad Community Manager / Public Relations / community@illyriad.co.uk |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 03:20
|
Brand, in general I agree with you: Anything within the rules of the game is "acceptable." Whether it is wise or not is another matter. Sometimes one has to pick one's battles, and if the other side is fighting with words, then in-game actions won't deprive their words of their power. Indeed, it may just serve to give people more of a platform to expound on the issue. At the same time, using game mechanics is FUN. As I have been known to say ... "Less talking, more sieging!" I guess to me the question is, what increases the net fun of the game -- both for me and for others. Smorgasboarding new players is probably not going to be that fun for me, and rarely will be fun for them. (Unless I smorgasboard them gently, such as sending an overabundance of ceramic materials.)
|
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 06:47
|
"smorgasboarder" is a nice term. However, one has to wonder why people are so reluctant to use a perfectly clear and applicable word like "bullying" In another forum post I quote dictionary.com re what the word means. If you look it up you find it accurately describes certain actions done in Illy. Now GM Rikoo has defined those actions as "aggressive gameplay" rather than bullying. I do think he's just afraid to use an over used and politically charged word to describe what is occurring and will probably occur often in Illy. It is this sensitivity to the social and political echos surrounding the word that most players, I think are experiencing. And they have a right to be uncomfortable with the word because bullying is uncomfortable to those who are being bullied, in Illy or anywhere else for that matter. But really what we are experiencing here is not about the game, but about whether one has the right to use force to make another person shut up. Are the larger players also going to control what is said in the forums? And since the forums may cover wider topics than GC, is it okay for me to take offense at your political position and then to "take it out on you" in the game? The more we allow players to attack smaller players for what those smaller players say (within reason of course), the more we make the same dominance in the actual game prevalent in the forums. Somehow I think the forums should be a place of free discussion rather than a place where I must not express views contrary to those of larger alliances. I agree with Rill that whatever is allowed in the game is allowable....but if so let us be clear about what we are allowing. If we see a "new" rule (for TBL anyway) that appears to us to be unhealthy or just bad for the game, we have to have a long discussion about it. That's what we are doing. And if that rule is proven to be a bad thing for the game or a bad thing altogether, we need to keep it from becoming a rule at all. It's nice of GM Rikoo to say that 'bullying' is in the game. But should it be? And if so, should it be allowed via land claims, smorgasboarding, and any other things? Is bullying healthy game play in a game that claims all players can play as they wish? AJ |
Posted By: mjc2
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 08:07
aj, i have one simple question. how are you going to stop bullying in game without bullying the bullies into stopping? and if you do that then you would have to bully yourself for bullying them. vicious cycle here where will it stop?
|
ajqtrz wrote:Posted By: Thexion
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 08:11
|
Problem is that you tend to spread word bullying to everything you don't like to describe it negatively. Violence, Intimidation, coercion and threats are part many things in real world societies, legal systems, goverments and even in parenthood. Perhaps its not always good or right but it is simply so and still not bullying. But of course you can use or choose the dictionary definition you like. In my opinion this is more accurate description of bullying from the wikipedia: Bullying may be defined as the activity of repeated, aggressive behavior intended to hurt another individual, physically, mentally or emotionally. Bullying is characterized by an individual behaving in a certain way to gain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28social_and_political%29" rel="nofollow - power over another person. That does not include competition over land or resources. I could suggest that Over claiming resources with out care of others could be calling Smorgasboarding if you like. |
Posted By: Jax
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 09:54
| I think of it more as an in-game threat than bullying. When I think of bullying, I think of some big guy stealing your lunch money. You can't compare in-game threats to lunch money, they're not the same. If someone is forcing you to do something against your will [or else they mess you up] , you should say "Yo, this guy is threatening me." not "Yo, this guy is bullying me." When you say 'threatening' it doesn't necessarily relate to RL. |
Posted By: IbnSenna
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 12:18
|
mmh! claiming publicly that intruding on a territory, without any damage on existing investments, verges on threat, intimidation and should rightly be described as bullying. |
Posted By: Llannedd
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 13:16
| A few of the previous posts demonstrate my point that the term "bullying" is now being thrown around so much that it is meaningless. Bullying is something that happens to real people in real life. Bullying cannot happen to imaginary characters in a fantasy game. If anyone take things that happen in a game like this seriously then I strongly suggest that they seek help from a mental health professional. |
Posted By: Legoman
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 14:46
| A number of large alliances together under one banner could be seen as bullying. |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 15:23
The use of force? Are you for real? Somebody stole a few pixels from you in a video game, and you are equating that to real life assault and cyber-bullying? Loosen the grip, buddy. This is ultimately just a game.
Are you really proposing that you should get to trash talk however you like, and nobody responds within the confines of the video game? That's just silly. An in-game action is far more reasonable than a lot of your trash talking. Also, let's not ignore the spectacular irony of your complaints. I was recently hit by thieves, and I tracked them right back to the sender. Unlike you, I have screen captures and time stamps that demonstrate airtight proof. I chose not to complain or retaliate because the attacking alliance is considerably larger than eCrow and has some big, aggressive players. eCrow has been hit with other thief attacks in that region, many correlated to jumps in that same particular player's diplo score. So before you resume banging the drum about bullying, maybe you'd like to address your raging hypocrisy over the fact that your own allies have been quietly attacking a peaceful alliance half their size. I am not complaining, by the way. Thief attacks are a minor annoyance. It really wasn't worth a strategic response. But I have zero inclination to sit here and listen to you label thief attacks as bullying, when it's a tool that your own allies have recently used against eCrow. Or do you intend to claim that such actions are only harassment when done against you, and not by you? |
Posted By: Snook
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 15:44
|
I agree with GM Rikoo bullying has been apart of ILLY since before i started and I'm sure from the beginning? but some are smarter than others. this helps to make for a lil fun sometimes? unless your a little guy that is what GC is for |
Posted By: Veneke
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 16:10
|
I struggle to comprehend the mental gymnastics required that would allow anyone to think that this is an issue worth talking about. There's a perfectly good topic of debate that should have been going on in the other thread regarding land claims and what they mean for Illyriad, and specifically the Broken Lands. Instead, some of the folk who have had a knee-jerk reaction to land claims have decided that what we actually should be discussing is the precise meaning and use of the word bullying, and how we can mould and adjust it to cover something which is quite obviously not bullying. Even more spectacularly, this debate really seems to have kicked off after Rikoo clarified that land claims were not bullying. This turn of events has highlighted, for me at any rate, exactly why there is not more active forum use. People who have half a mind to debate the issues of the day in the game are not going to come back every day to stop and wrangle with someone over some issue that is largely irrelevant to the topic at hand, and which has already been decided upon by the people who make the decision as to what constitutes what in the context of the game. ------------- "May have been the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one." - Captain Malcolm Reynolds |
Posted By: Janders
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 16:24
So my lil opinionated alliance mate AJ had the thieving incident, and now has multiple hostile armies inbound on him. Apparently due to airing his opinions on the forum. I call this mega-smorgasboarding! or in game aggression? or acts of war? or a grand gesture of peace and harmony! Now as you might recall, I actually posted in favor of the concept of land claims. As such, i am expecting someone to send me a gift basket of rare minerals and gold. Fair is fair :) Janders of WoT
|
Posted By: Legoman
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 16:29
 Just because "you" don't like something that doesn't automatically make it bullying. I don't like certain types of music, but that doesn't mean you are bullying me by playing it where I can hear it. |
Posted By: Siren418
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 18:17
| To people who feel like they are being "bullied" by diplos, thieves, etc. all I have to say is "toughin' up buttercup!" This is a video game, if you're not having fun by using the game mechanics, you may go elsewhere. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 30 May 2015 at 03:38
|
Could we adjourn the bullying discussion to another thread? The purpose of this thread is to discuss "smorgasboarding," which is the use of in-game mechanics to intimidate, dissuade or otherwise influence (coerce?) players into not expressing viewpoints with which one may disagree. Thanks!
|
Posted By: Stukahh
Date Posted: 30 May 2015 at 04:10
Is that what this is all about? Here I thought you just had a deep passion for smorgasbord. My bad. ------------- I don't always drink. But when I do, I prefer the blood of my enemies. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 30 May 2015 at 04:35
| Sorry Stukahh, entirely different thing. Smorgasbord is a noun. Smorgasboard is a verb. |
Posted By: Thorgrim
Date Posted: 31 May 2015 at 13:03
How about Smorgasbored? It is a state of mind. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/260239" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 31 May 2015 at 23:34
Not familiar with it. Is it relevant to this thread? If so, please define.
|
Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2015 at 15:10
Seeing as this is a pointless thread any post would be relevant to it thus making a pointfull thread with no relevance.  ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2015 at 17:29
|
If you believe the thread is pointless, there is not a need for you to post here. I think the topic of whether and under what circumstances it is a good idea to attempt to prevent a person from expressing ideas in chat or on the forum through using game mechanics such as diplos, attackes etc., is an interesting and worthwhile topic. Therefore, I'd appreciate if people returned to the topic at hand.
|
Posted By: Stukahh
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2015 at 19:24
|
anybody watching the hockey playoffs? ------------- I don't always drink. But when I do, I prefer the blood of my enemies. |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2015 at 22:32
|
I do agree with Rill. Let us discuss the relationship between the forum and the "in game" aspect. If we allow that they are the same thing, as Rikoo seems to think, then there is a price to be paid for saying things others either disagree with or get upset by. In the end it would seem only those strong enough will be free to express their opinion as the rest may find it just too costly. The answer seems to me to be what do you want the forum to be? If it's an extension of the game then the large alliances should tell us all what we can or cannot say right up front. For me it's not fun to be attacked for what I've said in the forums and it would be just better off if those who want to dominate the forums as well as the game would publish a nice list of my opinions for me. On the other hand, if the forums are a place where all players should be allowed to express their opinions (within the bounds of civility I would think), then there must be a general consensus that letting forum disagreements spill over into GC and game action is not healthy for the gaming community. And if we were to have that I think the forums could be a lot of fun. So the question revolves on to what purpose the forums are to be put. As an extension of alliance power and control, or as a free wheeling (more or less) and free discussion of important topics where all members can speak up without fear of in game reprisal. AJ |
Posted By: Berde
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2015 at 23:13
| I do not see the forums as "separate" from "in game". I see it as an extension of GC where one can speak in paragraphs without getting hammered for walls-o-text. More importantly, it has a permanence that GC does not. |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2015 at 23:39
|
In reviewing some of the comments I've missed I find this: "Are you really proposing that you should get to trash talk however you like, and nobody responds within the confines of the video game? That's just silly. An in-game action is far more reasonable than a lot of your trash talking." From Brandmeister. My response is two-fold. 1) First, since the word has been applied to my actions, let's see if my actions were or have been "trash-talking." We can of course call anything we disagree with by the term, but to do so is to ignore the purpose of language, to communicate. I could call you a 'racist pig' and make it stick so long as you let me define what "racist pig" means....in this case I would just claim I meant it to mean a "nice guy"...but you wouldn't believe me, would you? So definitions are not arbitrary things to just throw around and we are not the Cheshire cat who famously said, "A word can mean whatever I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less." So from the dictionary: Trash Talk: "insulting or boastful speech intended to demoralize, intimidate, or humiliate someone, especially an opponent in an athletic contest." Since Brandmeister has decided that some of my comments were "trash talk" do tell me which were of that nature. Which were insulting or boastful statements intended to demoralize, intimidate or humiliate someone? 2) Second, I've also been accused of slander. The definition of slander is simple: to knowingly say something that isn't true with the intention of damaging the reputation of another. The key to understanding it is that the one slandering understands that the evidence of his or her statements does not fully or strongly support the conclusions (meaning that they are jumping to conclusions) and thus the statement may not be true to the point that a reasonable person would not have said it. Thus, you to slander you must both know what you are saying is not warranted by the evidence (not "proved" but warranted) and you must actually damage the reputation of the other person. I bring this up because when you say I have engaged in "trash talk" one of the following three things must be true: 1) you have evidence that such is the case and can and will provide it; 2) are mistaken about the term and have miss applied it; or 3) you knew that the statements I've made were not trash-talk but used the term to damage my reputation. My belief is number 2. I don't think you would have intentionally used the term if you had understood that what I have done is not "trash talk." But since terms do have meaning and that meaning is best adjudicated by a dictionary I would suggest that you should produce said evidence or an apology for your understandable mistake. AJ |
Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2015 at 23:46
| Illyriad is a game of diplomacy. How one acts on the forums and in GC can have consequences in the game. So avoiding such consequences is a BIG part of being a good player. It's even more important for an alliance leader or someone who hopes to someday become one. If you say things publicly and constantly that piss a lot of people off, you are basically sealing your own fate. Publicly accusing an alliance of thieving with little evidence would be a move that could cause such a severe reaction.. aj wasn't bullied or "smorgasboarded", he just felt in-game consequences directly related to his own actions. I see no reason why this should upset people! |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 01:48
Do you ever find your own irony painful, or is intellectual consistency just kinda lost on you?
I like the Wikipedia definition for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trash-talk" rel="nofollow - Trash-Talk : Trash-talk is a form of boast or insult commonly heard in competitive situations, (such as sports events and multiplayer video games). It is often used to intimidate the opposition, but can also be used in a humorous spirit. Trash-talk is often characterized by use of hyperbole or figurative language. Let's see if I can come up with a few examples of you using hyperbole in the context of your philosophical opponents in this multiplayer video game:
You characterized the land claim players (whom you very clearly oppose) as bullies who use threats, intimidation, and coercion. You did it at least sixteen different times. Achievement Unlocked: Dead horse, beaten thrice! Oh look, I found two more mentions! Achievement Unlocked: Thrice beaten dead horse, twice beaten thrice! Given your insulting characterizations of your opponents over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, I'm just going to go ahead and correctly conclude that you've been trash talking.
I just went ahead and took the "evidence" route, hope that's okay.
Or you could just learn to express public disagreement without the use of insulting hyperbole like your "intimdation, threats, and coercion" trash talk. Over the years I have disagreed strongly with many powerful people on this forum, and nobody has ever really harassed me in the game. Angrim and many others have done the same. If you have been subjected to in-game consequences from posting on this Illyriad forum, perhaps you should consider the methods by which you make (or completely fail to make) your points. |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 02:25
|
Jane, When you said: "Publicly accusing an alliance of thieving with little evidence" you obvioiusly did not read the post completely or look at the available evidence. The post specifically says I was not accusing anybody of thieving. Read the post. I merely laid out the evidence I had and told people they could draw their own conclusions. That you thought the evidence pointed to thieving is the only way you could say I accused anybody of thieving. Thus the evidence presented was sufficient for you to draw a conclusion I did not draw. You can't have it both ways. You can't say the evidence was "little" at the same time you say it was "enough" for a person to draw a particular conclusion (valid or not). In addition, if the alliance in question thought the evidence so poor, why did they think I had accused them? I can call you a marshmallow but nobody would take me seriously unless I had a picture of you in a "Stay Puff" bag (LOL) My point is that the evidence was strong enough that a LOT of people thought it led to the accusation you thought I was making.... and if so, then obviously the evidence was not "little" I will admit here and now that the evidence was not conclusive. But it was never presented that way and in the post I said the evidence was not complete AND that I was NOT accusing anybody. I will also admit that the structure of the presentation was not neutral enough to and tended to lead others to a conclusion that fell short of proof. I regret that I did not reflect myself enough on the wording and should have either not made the post of taken it to a different place for review. But even so, whatever a person says in the forum ought to be dealt with in the forum. I'm quite certain that if I were accused of this I would have done my homework and presented an alternative theory to show that the evidence presented could reach a different conclusion and THEN asked the poster to amend his or her post. And if I had been presented with that scenario (the alternative explanation did come long after other actions were taken) I would have sheepishly amended my post and admitted my mistakes. But that is not the procedure some people think to use. Instead of doing themselves justice and making their case in the forums (and in doing so the weakness of the original argument) they choose display their own apparent belief that they have no good counter argument by using "other means" to "win"the debate. This approach is nothing more than the same thuggery you experience when you are in a debate in RL and the person with whom you are debating decides they can't win and threatens you. It is obviously not as serious a threat, but it's the same basic threat. I would say to anybody who doesn't have the stomach for good debate and the self-discipline to stick to the question and make their case, don't get into the debate. There is no excuse for bullying people just because you can't counter their arguments with better arguments. The force of arms ought not be the final arbiter of good debate for when it is all who speak are threatened. If you wish to speak you ought to remember that the first step to silencing everybody is to silence the best and the loudest. AJ |
Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 03:13
| I stand by my statements, you should have never brought the thieving to the forums. It's terrible diplomacy. |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 03:42
|
Jane, Did you read my post? Did I not say I should have taken my evidence to my alliance? As for it being "terrible diplomacy" did you really expect me to be a master diplomat? LOL Ask my wife and she will disavow my abilities in that area. How about you admit that other than making my case in public and not presenting it well, both of which I have admitted, you may have over stated your case. I notice you don't respond to my claim that the evidence was not "little." I suspect you don't because it wasn't. And if it wasn't then my only fault was in being a poor diplomat. Mea Culpa. And on that note, is it really good diplomacy to get on the side that says, "I'm pissed off so that justifies whatever I want to do?"...which is what you seem to be saying. I wouldn't want to be on side that says emotions are the final arbiter of right and wrong. AJ |
Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 03:44
| I'm not on that side. I just think by arguing with more and more people you are digging yourself deeper and deeper and it's really hard to watch. |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 04:05
|
Brandmeister, Well, at least you tried. In debate you can't simply call everything the other side is saying "trash talk" and pretend it fits the definition. Using your own definition here: Trash-talk is a form of boast or insult commonly heard in competitive situations, (such as sports events and multiplayer video games). It is often used to intimidate the opposition, but can also be used in a humorous spirit. Trash-talk is often characterized by use of hyperbole or figurative language. with your own additions and emphasis, lets examine what you are saying and see if you've even come close to prooving your point. First, the argument is about a set of behaviors I classify as "intimidation, threats and coercion" a phrase the shorthand of which is "bullying." Notice that this is the topic of which almost all the evidence you call "trash talking" is used to support and define this key term. Just because a phrase is negative does not make it "trash talk" especially if it's what's being debated. But there's more. "Insult" is a negative term, defined as: "speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse." Claiming that the actions inherent in land claims is only disrespectful if you think that "intimidation, threat and coercion" are not applicable AND that these are the techniques being used to enforce land claims. It is never disrespectful to tell the truth as you understand it...unless you are intending to hurt I suppose. "often used to intimidate?" If my talk is intimidating the activity of this thread certainly is strange. Are you intimidated? Do you feel like you can't say what you want? Do you have any reason to fear that even if you accidentally insult me I'm going to send my armies at you? I think not. and "often characterized by use of hyperbole." Hmmm...this may have a small bit of truth to it...though I think if it does it has only been out of my passionate style. So, using your definition: The evidence you present cannot be admitted as "trash talk" because it's part of discussion and if it is "insulting" it's only so if it's untrue ...which is the point we are debating. Second, nobody seems to be intimidated by my passionate style. And finally, okay, I may, sometimes, a tiny bit, exaggerate. Now, for the real evidence of trash talking by myself......I'm waiting..... AJ |
Posted By: Berde
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 04:22
| aj, dude, are you buying your shovels in bulk from Costco? |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 04:28
You named a specific player and city. I'd call that an accusation. Admitting that you can't actually prove it was that player doesn't mean you didn't make an accusation, it just means you made an unsubstantiated accusation. Big difference. Leading with the conclusion precludes any right to claim that the evidence was presented in an impartial manner. You have yet to address the completely substantiated fact that your own alliance recently carried out unprovoked thief missions against eCrow, one of the friendliest alliances in the game. Apparently you believe it is a great crime when you personally suffer a thief attack (provoked, no less), but consider your own theft activities as above reproach. That seems remarkably hypocritical for a person claiming to represent the community's interests against tyrants who would bully, coerce, and intimidate us. |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 04:30
|
Jane, "[A]voiding such [negative] consequences is a BIG part of being a good player." Sometimes it is necessary to suffer for the better good. I neither seek suffering or avoid it out of intimidation...which is what you get when you decide that "avoiding such consequences" is important enough to turn a blind eye to a negative thing going on. I sense you think I'm being hurt by this encounter. Other than the unfortunate post about the thieving I wonder why people are so put off by my position? My suspicions are that I'm facing group think regarding this subject and most groups, when they are forced to rethink something they've never really considered, rebel. We are intellectually lazy creatures and don't like being challenged. Along those lines, as I said in another post, the usual pattern is often followed. First people engage in the debate. They usually think they've got the answer but generally haven't thought about it for so long (or at all) that they can only repeat the mantras handed down to them by others. Stage two is the turn to discrediting by attacking the speaker. Saying he's irrational, overly passionate, is talking trash...etc, etc....because they haven't really set forth an argument strong enough. Of course such attacks don't actually prove anything other than that the group has run out of steam and is tired of repeating their mantras. It is at this second stage that a group usually has to make a decision. Do they get serious about the question at hand or do they force the opposition to shut up by intimidation, threats or coercion? If the opposition has a good argument one or two things happen. They grow in their number and a healthy debate ensues. If not then often they become a lone voice and nobody pays a bit of attention to them. Or they are kicked out of the group. My hope is that continuing will naturally raise the number of people willing to speak out. It's not that land claims are a great evil in themselves, it's that they represent the very thing I detest the most...the unnecessary coercion of a person. I believe in persuasion, not coercion. I believe in civil (and passionate) debate not thuggery and armies marching in the night. I shouldn't have to feel intimidated in this forum I shouldn't have to worry about "pissing off" a bunch of people. Good ideas and passionate debate should piss some people off...but it should also remain civil and passionate debate about the issue, not the personality and the failings of one side or the other. As for my implied "digging myself deeper and deeper," I have to wonder why that is. It would appear to me that the nice people wouldn't debate like I do. Nice people are polite and seldom cause any waves. Nice people sleep away and let things go to pot as they snooze in the shade. I'm glad I'm not a nice person because I think it's better to do what you can and lose than to do nothing and lose even more. AJ |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 04:47
|
"Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial" -- first-century Roman philosopher Smorgasboarding as defined in this post is clearly allowed in game mechanics. But is it effective if its intention is to silence or quiet dissent or argument? Past experience seems to suggest it is not. This is a utilitarian perspective on things, to be sure.
|
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 06:10
|
Rill, if a person has no concern for their cities (or potential repercussions against their allies), they can say whatever they want in the forums and GC. Many have proved that over the years, by maintaining a high degree of antagonistic behavior that remains just below the banhammer's threshold. The same is true of those players with sufficient in-game power to resist anything but the most determined assault. How would we know if an in-game threat of action caused someone to fall silent? By definition, most such situations would be indistinguishable from an ordinary lapse in conversation. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 06:43
|
I am aware of a number of situations in which players have been targeted by in-game mechanics as a result of opinions expressed in global chat or on the forum. In some cases that resulted in the person no longer speaking or occasionally rage-quitting. In other cases the person continued to speak out. In both scenarios, the reputation of the person using the game mechanics to attempt to silence someone suffered as a result, at least among some parties. I conclude that overall it's not a very effective way of dealing with dissent. Other people may disagree.
|
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 17:52
|
If a player is active in the forums we know one thing about them: they enjoy speaking or feel passionate enough about something to speak out. It therefore stands to reason that if they quit speaking they have done so because of a change in their circumstances...either in game or in real life. Now if the change is in the game then it would be a strong correlation if they quit speaking right after they suffered some major defeat. And if that defeat were at the hands of some person or alliance they "offended" then, while not proof, it would be a reasonable conclusion. Furthermore, if they are the speaking type it is unlikely they will be silent. If they feel they were punished because of their voice in the forums or GC they wouldn't hesitate to say so. My own experience has taught me that they might even over-state the case...LOL. Thus, I do think we would hear about it. And I do think we have heard about it on occasion. The most telling proof of this is when a person "rage quits" because of the actions of his or her "enemies." I know of at least one player driven from the game by a group of players over comments made in GC. I looked carefully at the comments and tried to get both parties to understand that what was said being interpreted in two different ways, both withing the scope of the words used. I recommended they let it go and thought I had an agreement from both of them to do so. But then one side went ahead and hounded the other person out of the game. Of course, since it was in the game Rikoo has decided we can't call it....... LOL ...it was "smorgasbording." I think, therefore, Rill is correct that it occurs. And I do think the reputation of the one who drove the player out of the game was damaged. But time heals all wounds and those who remain in the game alone can repair their reputations. Those who leave are lost. As for the person who "has no concern for their cities," I'm not sure of whom Brandmesiter is speaking. My sense is that almost everybody, unless they are about to leave the game, has some concern for their cities. But what I think you are actually saying Brandmeister, is, "if you aren't big enough to defend your cities against an attack provoked by something you say in GC or the forums, don't speak if you care about your cities." By this we, of course, are telling the smaller players they risk reprisal if they say something disagreeable to some big player or alliance. I do think that this attitude is unwelcoming to smaller players who, I think, should be represented at the table of discussion. Thus, if it becomes known and understood that reprisal is acceptable then the forums suffer fewer participants (forget the ones who have suffered and think for a moment of all the ones who may speak up but think better of it as they can't withstand the reprisal of saying something controversial). You want a healthy game? You have to have a healthy discussion of the game. You won't have that if are telling people they aren't allowed to speak until they are big enough to defend their words with their armies. AJ |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2015 at 21:42
|
I keep using a
particular definition of "bullying" that describes it as "intimidation,
threats and coercion." That is my denotative definition. However, the
term also has a "conotative" definition which might be defined thus: "acting like a uncaring and uncouth person while
intimidating, threatening and physically abusing others to get what you
want." See the difference? If you are one who insists that what is
going on in the game cannot be called "bullying" you may be right if we
use the connotative definition since that includes a moral judgment
which the denotative one only implies. If you are one who is
"intimidating, threatening, and coercing" within the game you may not
wish to also be called one who is "morally suspect." So you reject the
term. I can understand that, and I think Rill, in her discussion of
Smorgasbording, is on a track to substitute a more neutral term for
using the force of the in game mechanics to influence or control the
speech in the forum. But, ultimately, I think the effort may be more of a disservice than helpful. (Sorry Rill). Here's why: I was listening to a lecture the other day on Facebook's recent crack down on some pretty nasty trolls. Nobody disputes that what these people do is bullying because it is very pervasive and consistent. That's why, Facebook, in an effort to make their product more enjoyable to more people, has decided that it will no longer be the "wild west" of social communication, but will move against trolls. The speaker applauded this decision by Facebook, as do I. I applaud it because when it comes to communication, if it isn't civil, it isn't pleasant and an enjoyable time should be available to all players. But Facebook had to first come to the place where they understood that the behaviors of the trolls were damaging to their product. Now I'm not saying that the actions of players are on the level of those trolls....see how careful I am to disclaim the equating of what I am saying to what Facebook claims about their trolls?....but I am saying we should not be afraid to recognize the behaviors do fit the definition AND more importantly, to recognize that such behaviors will either mean nobody challenges the land claims (making the game less flexible for new players and smaller alliances) or will be perceived by those who are "removed" as bullying. The problem is, if we call it "smorgasbording" we do a dis-service by using a euphemism to avoid portraying ourselves as morally suspect. But we should be willing, I think, to call what something is by it's proper name AND to accept the moral implications of the connotations attached to that name. If we do, it may be that we see the importance of changing our behaviors. Beneath our desire to restrict "bullying" to the "real world" and to insist that it must somehow impact that world is the false notion that there is a big barrier between the player and his or her avatar. The same psychologist Iheard on NPR last week, who studies online identification and communication, noted that the reason people will engage in trolling behaviors is that they think not that THEY are anonymous, but that the person upon whom they inflict their ire is anonymous to them. In other words, because they think they are speaking to an avatar and not to a human being, they do not monitor their words and thus overstep the bounds of social responsibility. It think a similar thing occurs in Illy when players insist "it's just a game" or that "it's a war game" as if therefore, they are only dealing with some avatar and not a real human being. Think for a minute of the difference between a sport like soccer and a game like Illy. Two teams meeting on the field brings people into direct contact with each other. They play the game, and if emotions follow, all players know that it was and is a real person feeling those emotions. In Illy the avatars have no emotional response. If they were left to themselves they would do exactly nothing. They wouldn't build cities. They wouldn't react to being attacked. They wouldn't feel elation, disappointment, joy, humor or anything. It's not the avatar, it's the human. And that human isn't feeling "imaginary" emotions, but real emotions. When a person is attacked in Illy, especially when they have done nothing to provoke the attack (or feel like they haven't) they react. When a person writes something in the forums that another finds offensive, the one offended isn't the avatar, it's a real person and they feel the anger. Thus, while it may be a "game" it's not "just a game." This from: NoBullying, a website dedicated to the eradication of bullying: http://news.jrn.msu.edu/bullying/2012/02/15/video-game-griefers/" rel="nofollow - “Griefers” is the term given to those who make use of online games as a way to target [children and sometimes] adults while they are taking part in online gaming. These players will purposely seek out other gamers and target them in the game. Not only will they attack these players as part of the game, they will also engage in aggressive behavior outside the parameters of the game, including sending threatening or harassing messages. Some of these griefers will use the excuse of simply “playing the game,” while really using the game as a way to cyber bully other players. " Now the current behaviors of the players in Illy certainly fall short of this. But if you allow for the two parts of this to occur: the in game attacks AND the out of game (forums, for instance) aggression, isn't it just a matter of time? If two persons engage in the similar actions regarding another, how are we to tell who is "just playing the game" and who is actually "bullying?" To the "victim" it probably all the same. One of the reasons I think we should call bullying, "bullying" is that to do less is to minimize the reality we face that some players are and have been bullied out of the game AND the type of behaviors they have done are the same kind and degree inherent in any activity which "intimidate, threatens and coerces" another player. As Shakepheare may have written would he have been present, "Bullying by any other name is still as putrid." In summary, I think we should use the term "bullying" because the behaviors match the definition, to do otherwise allows those who feel morally squeamish about the term off the hook, the behaviors are the same whether the person intends to bully or not, and using any other term will allow real bullies to hide behind a euphemism. In the end, if you don't like the term, get on the bandwagon to stop the behaviors. AJ |
Posted By: GM Rikoo
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2015 at 21:48
|
So, use the term bullying. I didn't say you had to use something else. But, as with many other words, I want you to make sure you are using the appropriate form when coming to me to ask for help. If you only saw the IGMs I do... :) I am not sure why this definition has needed such a discussion, but hey, if you feel the need go for it. Just let me know if you have any questions about rules/mechanics, etc. Rikoo ------------- Illyriad Community Manager / Public Relations / community@illyriad.co.uk |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2015 at 00:05
|
no idea what sparked all this, but creating a new word for it seems a silly stunt to me. i sympathise with Llannedd, but i don't quite agree. i have a slightly different definition of "bullying" which i learnt here in the forum: bullying (n): any interaction intended to influence another player and which the speaker finds offensive or undesirable, often implying that the target is overmatched. so when H? published its 10-square rule, players who wanted to settle closer felt it was bullying. and when TCol made land claims in Mal Motsha and Keshalia, players who had designs on those areas felt it was bullying. and when a certain alliance of my acquaintance was told it should expect incoming sieges if it named itself a certain way, some of us felt it was bullying. and when said alliance attempted to convince its neighbours to respect crow markers, some of them felt it was bullying. and when NC started choosing unexpected targets for its recreational wars, alliances that saw themselves or their friends as potential targets saw it as bullying. and when a group of alliances joined forces to (among other things) put an end to NC's activities, NC itself saw it as bullying. it's an emotionally charged word that tries to put the other side of an argument on the defensive. it says, as i have said before, much more about the player using it than about the cause s/he finds offensive. calling something "bullying" is an attempt to short-circuit the entire discussion of whether or not a particular use of power is right or wrong and go directly to the emotional outrage. i don't know what precipitated all this, and i've very little interest in learning, but i've spent enough time in the game to be suspicious of anyone who wants to start a discussion with a conclusion. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2015 at 00:13
|
The introduction of a new term, tongue in cheek, was intended to remove a previous term that already comes laden with meaning. As you commented, Angrim, the invocation of that term tends to bring with it a lot of excess baggage. The goal of this thread is to discuss the act of using game mechanics to attempt to influence speech, in the forum, in global chat, or in other venues. Specifically, is this an effective strategy? Under what circumstances should it be employed? Etc. I think Angrim has illustrated some of the dangers of smorgasboarding as defined, to wit, that players may not take kindly to such actions -- even players with broadly divergent viewpoints.
|
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2015 at 18:51
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2015 at 19:21
|
Illy subcontracts out forum administration, iirc. However, whether a forum is administered by Illy or someone else, even a facebook group or whatever, the purpose of this thread is to discuss using game mechanics to try to influence speech. I am interested in questions like do people believe this is ethical and do they think it is effective. Angrim, it seems that you believe this to be ethical -- do you also see it as being effective?
|
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2015 at 19:43
|
I believe it is ethical. I also believe the effectiveness varies greatly, depending on how strongly that person feels about the issue, how sensitive a person is to in-game damage (thieves, sieges, etc.), and how likely they perceive that damage to be. Much attention has been given to the last category, in that large, powerful alliances can provide considerable protection (or put forth meaningful menace). But other factors like popularity can also provide an effective shield. Durc, for example, issued the occasional scathing critique of powerful alliances, from tiny CAVE, but I don't think anyone would have dared to menace her into silence. She was too well liked by too many powerful players for that to work. There are also many players who just aren't that afraid of city, troop, or inventory damage. Some others just feel so strongly that they cannot hold their silence. Presumably for others, the tactic would work. |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 21:11
|
In another post I put forth some ideas on why I think it's not desirable to "smorgasbord." For practical reasons and game experience enhancement I believe it is a bad practice. The question of ethics is a difficult one since there may be a lot of divergent standards and basis of ethical behaviors. I think equal respect of all players is one of the basis of a sound and practical ethic I think, and one to which most, if not all, will agree. So here's my statement on why "smorgasbording" is unethical if we start with equal respect of all players. 1) It is unethical because it shows more respect for large and established players than small ones. If something is said in the forums which is offensive to somebody, I doubt they will attack a large and well connected alliance but they might very well attack an individual player or a small alliance. It's just a pragmatic decision but one which means that those in well established alliances can say more and say it more freely than those not in such alliances. 2) It is unethical if it is done in response to well reasoned and well argued points addressing the subject at hand, (as opposed to personal attacks). Again, it is disrespectful to a player to attack them for what they think and say in the forums if their utterances are civil. 3) If you think respect means civility, there is nothing civil about sending armies to exact something from another player in the game. Thus, if respect means civility, it is unethical. AJ |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 22:48
if i tell a player that harvesting on my sovereignty will be met with a military response, am i intimidating him/her? of course. if i declare my alliance has exclusive harvesting rights at a distance of five or even ten squares from my cities? yes, clearly. i have communicated my expectations with regard to conduct in an area in which i have influence. are my claims reasonable? am i really prepared to risk escalation to enforce my claims? have i the status and resources to do so? the answers to these questions are the very game. you have done this yourself. should i believe the question is intentionally disingenuous, or (alternately) that you draw an ethical distinction between intimidation on occasions you choose versus intimidation by others on different occasions? if it's the latter, then the intimidation seems not to be the issue. i certainly do not see that posting on a forum rather than in igm or chatzy makes much difference to the ethics of the action.
edited for better sentence structure. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2015 at 03:49
|
My ethical code tends to be somewhat situational and/or utilitarian. For me, the "good" that I see to be created in Illy is the most fun for me and others. Therefore I try to judge my behavior on whether something is likely to produce fun for me and for other people. It is of course always easy to overweight one's own interests or values in such an attempt. Personally I see smorgasboarding in general as being potentially ethical, depending on the lengths to which one goes. At one point does the other party cease to have the potential to have fun in Illy? That would be the criterion I would judge it on. I also try to act based on what I perceive to be effective. I've noted in other posts that it's my perception that smorgasboarding is generally not very effective in achieving its ends, and even when it is effective it tends to have other unintended negative consequences. So , even though it is ethical, because I believe it to be ineffective, at least in the situations I've encountered it so far, I am resolved to try to avoid it. Since I am not perfect and sometimes have a short fuse, hopefully my alliance mates will assist me in using good judgment here. What do others think about the ethics and effectiveness of smorgasboarding?
|
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2015 at 02:43
|
Angrim, When you say you "see no meaning to the question." I assume you mean the question "is smorgasbording ethical". If so then the question "is persuasive communication ethical?" is a reasonable one to ask, and one which has been asked repeatedly since Georgais and Socrates discussed rhetoric in the time of the ancient Greeks. You seem to be taking the side of the "Sophists" who argued that persuasion was only a matter of manipulation, a point you seem to be making when you say, "one pits one's charm or one's wit or one's knowledge against another's in an attempt to have him/her behave as one would like." As long as one is a materialist one is compelled to the point of view you have taken, I think. After all, as the old saying goes in philosophy, "you can't get ought from is." Which simply means if you don't value ethics no amount of measuring will compel you to value what you don't value. Ethics depends on a desire for the ethical and once you have that, you then can precede to find an ethical base. Finally, I do appreciate your stand for what it is and am glad you are clear about it. In the end all that counts, from the standpoint of your "ethical system" is the size of the club you use to get what you want. But here's my problem with that. If you reduce it all to the size of your armies and the force of your will (al la Nietzche) then all things are justified to the winner. If your goal, on the other hand, is to create an environment where players desire to play, then your "ethical system" lacks utility. For players of Illy, or at least most players, do have a sense that fairness should be decided by something other than the size of the hammer you wield and players ought to be treated with respect. In games where this is not true many quit and go elsewhere. At least that' been my experience. So using the hammer as the final arbiter of debate is not conducive to a game attractive to many. Perhaps, therefore, your ethical standard, though admirable from a certain reference point, falls short as a standard for debate in the forum. AJ |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2015 at 03:37
|
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2015 at 22:27
|
perhaps fuel for further discussion, Pico seems to be describing here his own attempt to influence forum communication via non-forum activity. another example, perhaps another perspective. http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/topic6454_post87504.html#87504 |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2015 at 20:03
|
Angrim, I truely appreciate you considered responses. Nice to have civil conversation. As to your statement that "might has determined the state of play in illyriad since it's inception" I would agree. With caveats. First, in the end might will always determine the state of play in must about any game where a player can be silenced. Sadly, people are not susceptible to persuasion if the position they must take based upon logic means giving up something they have, especially if it's a significant advantage for them. Corporations in the US didn't wish to give up their monopolies but the US government stepped in and made them do so. The US government is the people of the US, the ultimate sovereign of the lands within the borders of my country. Our constitutions begins with "We the People" and that's who has the final word. I believe Illy, like all human endeavors, must also have the same kind of sovereignty. The game is designed to allow all kinds of players to "live and work" there and sometimes some peoples desires impinges on others. When that happens it is the whole of Illy that has to determine if the impingement is good for the whole of Illy or not. The right of self-rule is, I believe, one of the core premises upon which my whole "anti-land claim" stance rests. That my style of play may not be respected by other players is acceptable. However, I'm not arguing that you or anybody play like I do. I'm arguing that you and everybody else, as much as possible, leave me alone to play the way I wish to play. Land claims impinge one groups playing style upon another unnecessarily. It is almost certain that there will be conflicts in the sandbox, but that doesn't mean one should rely upon "in-game intimidation, threats and coercions" to accomplish their goals especially when other means that are not intimidating, threatening or coercing are available. Yes, it may be good strategy for them, but a better strategy would have been to accomplish what they wished to accomplished without the alternative and controversial methods. Sadly the short cut taken is probably going to cost them more than if they had just done it in a manner already acceptable to all...or almost all I suppose. This I love: "i recognise the system for what it is. that does not make unethical acts ethical or vice versa. but it is not inherently unethical for the powerful to use the power they have amassed or cowardly for less powerful players to be prudent in their speech." "The only thing necessary for triump of evil is that good men do nothing." JFK (and others expressing the same sentiment for many a century). My point is, only the self-centered and those bent upon the chains of selfish self-preservation take seriously the concept of keeping a low profile. You seem to want to divorce the "system" in the game from human behavior. It would be nice to act as avatars alone and not feel things. But, alas, there's a real person behind the mask of the avatar and THAT is where ethical or not resides. It's not in how we play the game but in how we play the game with others that ethics are important. As for my offending others, there was a post that was wrong and caused some to be offended. I've already apologized for that and have no need to do so again. However, if you think it offensive to take a stand against what others think, especially if it is a reasonable stand (meaning only that reasons are given for taking that stand and not that others would necessarily come to the same conclusions), I would say that therefore all debate is offensive. I'm not sure you wish to go that far. I suspect that all others who may have taken offense have done so out of frustration more than offense given. I've come to realize that some people are unable to engage in civil discussion without engaging in personal attacks and when one presents a determined resistance one usually encounters the undisciplined debaters out there. I'm quite certain it must be the education they are getting, but I could be wrong. In any case, if I have personally attacked any person and not apologized for my error, I do so here. That I am not aware of it, is, of course, either inexcusable and shows I'm an insensitive clod, or that offense may have been taken and/or given needlessly. In any ongoing debate it is quite possible to take offense where none was offered and to give offense unintentionally. In civil discussion I think, such offenses are usually overlooked out of the graciousness it takes to engage in these types of things. AJ |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2015 at 20:29
Where others have taken offense, it is due to the asymmetry of your attitude. When they encounter your "determined resistance", you demand that it be considered as a proper concept; when you encounter the determined resistance of others, you accuse them of intellectual laziness or blindly supporting the status quo. When others ignore facts you present, it is a great crime; when you ignore facts that contradict your views, it is of no consequence. Snide comments against you are ad hominem attacks; your own snide remarks are par for the course. You cannot demand full courtesy of others and extend so little yourself. You cannot claim to support the free exchange of ideas on this forum, and then shout down opposing viewpoints in enormous walls of text. To do so is hypocrisy. While you may stubbornly persist in the belief that you are the only person in Illyriad who can properly debate, the growing intolerance towards you on these forums stems not from the merit of your ideas, but by your dogged refusal to measure your own arguments by the same standard to which you would hold everyone else. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2015 at 04:10
i'm glad you enjoy the responses, but really, i can't find any evidence that you actually read what i write here, as your responses are generally just further amplification of your own thoughts...and if you're not genuinely trying to appreciate the opposing view there's not much purpose to my posting here (as neither i nor eCrow has any claim to stake). i'll have one more go at it, but i hardly know where to begin.
1) as i've already pointed out, *all* forms of claim make use of coercion, including the 10-square rule. do you support the 10-square rule? do you expect to defend your "claimed" land by military force? then you are no less guilty of coercion than is anyone else. 2) the emphasis in your paragraph is mine, as you seem to be saying that territorial claims are "wrong" because they are unusual. that is ironic to me mostly because i was playing when H? introduced the 10-square rule and i can tell you that it was *extremely* unpopular at the time. i do not see innovation as evil, so i cannot equate unusual with unethical.
|
Posted By: Spheniscidae
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2015 at 07:30
|
how is this thread even going on? ok, this game is dead. all that remains are walls of text.
|
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2015 at 21:59
Hmmmm.....please do define "courtesy" since, for the most part I find myself quite courteous. But perhaps I am wrong? Do lay out what comments I've expressed in a discourteous manner and I'll quickly and humbly apologize. As for "snide comments," I suspect that sometimes I do move in that direction. If so, do also point them out and we'll all be better able to remove them from our lexicon of debating styles. On the other hand, I also know that sometimes what I write only sounds snide because people assume I don't believe it. Sarcasm is often mistaken for truth but just as often a statement of truth is assumed to be nothing more than sarcasm. And to clarify, statements about my intelligence, wordiness, motivations, qualifications, hypocracy, etc....are ad hominem remarks as they are "to the man" rather than to the question at hand. If I have attacked somebody in that manner then I was wrong. Do let me know of those failings as well. Wouldn't want to set a bad example. As for extending courtesy, it is quite easy to do to even those who engage in ad hominem remarks. I do it all the time. And finally, when you say that I "accuse them of intellectual laziness or blindly supporting the status quo," I can only ask two things: are they intellectually lazy supporting the status quo?" And, where, exactly did I say they are "intellectually lazy?" I may have suggested a certain line of reasoning suggests that as a cause of the conclusion, but I don't remember having said anybody was actually "intellectually lazy" even I may have thought they were. If I did, I am sorry. It will not happen again. And thank you for your comments, they were most "incite-full." AJ |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2015 at 22:02
|
Spheniscidae o While it is true that there is a lot of verbiage here, much of it my own, it does not mean that it's a bad thing. Sometimes ideas take a while to "flesh out" and explore and words are how we do it. Sometimes, if the ideas are complex and the debaters passionate, it takes a lot of words. Nevertheless, I have learned an awful lot from all the verbiage and appreciate each and every poster, no matter how difficult the writing or questionable the comments. I even appreciate your comments! AJ |