Meta Discussion
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=6407
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 06:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Meta Discussion
Posted By: ajqtrz
Subject: Meta Discussion
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 21:40
|
This is a discussion about discussions. What ARE the rules? Not what can be discussed but where are the limits outside the limits spoken of in the forum user agreement. Here are some interesting questions: 1) If a speaker takes a position should is it proper to question their motives for taking the position they are taking? In other words, in what ways to motivations inform our conclusions and is it possible for us to be objective enough? 2) Is it okay to call somebody a name if their is good evidence that they are engaged in the behaviors to which the name applies? If I call you a butcher and you slaughter and cut up animals for sale, is that name calling? What about calling somebody a "drunk" when they are always saying that they are "drunk?" Where are the limits to labeling a person with a name? 3) If I say I don't feel you are correct, or I say I feel this way or that about a position, should your feelings be accepted as a form of "evidence?" Should you, ethically speaking, even say something if all you have is how you "feel?" 4) In what ways does a discussion become a war? And if it does, should it spill over into the game? Should people be punished in the game for what they say in the forums? If so, does that not give control of the forums to the larger players and alliances? Can they not censor a speaker who does not say what they say that speaker should say? These are just four questions I'd like to hear your opinions on. You may have other questions on the forums and how they work apart from the formal rules. Do ask and respond as you see fit...within the boundaries of the rules, of course. AJ |
Replies:
Posted By: scottfitz
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 21:48
| Can we really do justice to this post without first having a discussion about how to properly discuss discussions? |
Posted By: mjc2
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 21:53
|
ok, to answer your questions in order 1. yes, this is a forum you can question anything 2. yes, you can say anything you want in the forums as long as you do not violate the ToS. just be ready for in game responses in addition to replies on the forums 3. yes, if feelings are not considered evidence then why are we all even posting here because everything said here is based on feelings. 4. well first off a discussion cannot become a war until it spills over into the game. a war is a game mechanic and since these are questions about the meta game, this forum is part of the meta game, hence anything you do here can be replied to in game, that is what makes it a "meta game" instead of just a game. and no they cannot censor anyone that is willing to be razed back to the newb ring because someone willing to be razed back is willing to accept the consequences of what they say and can say anything they want. btw these are my opinions and based on my feelings so if you dont agree with my answer to number 3 then just ignore this post and anything i say from here on.
|
Posted By: Janders
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 22:33
|
My reply is the same as my reply to the question of land claims: Its a sandbox game! People can do anything they want. They can claim lands, demand the entire server sends them beer in tribute, or kill all harvesters within 15 squares. There will be repercussions to any of these actions. In the same way, people can discuss anything in the forums that isn't a ToS violation. They can discuss feelings, labels, whatever they want. In fact, things discussed in the forum or in GC can lead to in-game events. To me its all part of diplomacy. Sadly, I agree with you this means small players or small alliances may need to bite their tongues in this forum, unless they are anonymous! Of course, responding to a forum post or GC boast with a military / diplo attack has its own repercussions. I think most of illy approves of a certain degree of free speech, and someone who attacks those who disagrees with him on a forum might look bad in the eyes of most other players.
|
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 23:20
| mmmmm maybe we should all remember its a forum about a pretend game...personally its hard for meto obey any rules except the ones outlined by the game and even those are hard to obey....we should be flaming each other! have fun and remember this is a silly game! party on! |
Posted By: Janders
Date Posted: 29 May 2015 at 23:22
|
Oh I agree! I'd rather have some robust trash talking in the forum :) But some people take offense and reply with "real" armies, so watch out! :)
|
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2015 at 00:10
|
I guess I'm more interested in civil discussions since I don't believe it's really possible to separate the real person behind the character from the character and thus, what I do to or in response to others here reflects my character in RL. The idea that "it's just a game" is pretty much too often an excuse to engage in behaviors the person would never do in RL.. but because they can pretend that it's not a real person they are addressing in Illy, their are only the strictly defined "don'ts" of the user agreement. This seems rather odd to me. I don't think when a player gets upset it's a pretend character but a real person at the keyboard and I do think one must take that into account. As for feelings not being evidence, of course feelings are evidence, especially to the one who is doing the feeling. But what causes feelings anyway? If I feel strongly about this or that reference point if I expect you to feel the same way and you don't should I be surprised? And if I don't should you feeling about the matter be persuasive to me? Somehow I think many quesitons must be discussed beyond the state of our current emotions. To stay with feelings alone is to forget that we are also rational creatures and that there is a reality outside of our feelings that may be different from the perceptions upon which we may be basing our feelings. It's interesting to me that several posts seem to think I'm asking about this sandbox. A sandbox it may be, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have some level of civility for the very reasons just given: there are real people hitting the keys and whatever emotions they display in their words and actions those emotions are just as real as the player experiencing them. Thus, to my way of thinking, one ought to "consider also the things of others" in this cyberspace we share and remember you aren't really speaking to an Orc, Dwarf or Elf, or "human character" but to a real person. A study was done where a large group of persons were given an online game and a "role" to play. Many of the participants knew each other in RL. They remained separate for the entire 48 hours of the game and at the end were asked to identify which character was being played by which person. Almost all the players were identifiable by their friends even though they tried to play the character they were assigned and to hide their true identity. From this the researchers conclude that we give all kinds of clues about who we really are in these games, an observation with which I concur as I've experienced it myself. Thus, in the forums when we discuss we generally use the same approach to communication as we do in RL...meaning if we are unpleasant or vindictive in the forums we are probably so in RL at least to some degree. It's food for thought, itsn't it? AJ |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2015 at 02:09
| its a pretend mmo game, really aj use should try playing it and maybe you would enjoy it...but play as you want, just have fun! when it ends your real life will go on. |
Posted By: Artefore
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2015 at 07:07
|
Rule 7: There is no rule 7. ------------- "don't quote me on that" -Artefore |
Posted By: Dungshoveleux
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2015 at 08:28
|
Rule 7? That's rule 1 surely  Rule 1: There are no rules. Rule 2: Please refer to rule 1.
|
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2015 at 05:02
You should be able to answer that one yourself.
I thought rule 1 and 2 was that you don't talk about the rules? -------------  |
ajqtrz wrote:
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2015 at 22:51
|
Twi, are you a pretend person? Are the emotions, good and bad, you experience in playing the game imaginary? Do magical fingers type and click the mouse? The game is an imaginary journey but it is a human one too. A long time ago Aristotle discussed the importance of the imagination and our enjoyment of stories. In his discussion he suggested that stories are "cathartic" and that we draw our enjoyment from them. Thus, while many would like to pretend that there is a giant wall between their character on line and their actual person sitting in the seat before the computer (or whatever device you use), that wall is what is mostly a pretense. Try this experiment. Try building in whatever game you like, something that takes a long time, a lot of personal creativity, and is something admired by other players. Then don't defend it against any attacks. Just let people walk all over it, totally destroying it against you will. Now I ask you two questions: why did you care? and why did you want it protected? It's just an imaginary thing for heavens sake. The hours you put into it were not imaginary hours, of course. And the skills you learned are not imaginary. So why would you be frustrated if somebody just destroyed it? My argument is simple. It's YOU, not your imaginary character in an imaginary world, who decides to spend the time and energy building things up, and it's YOU who experience the thrill of being well respected, not your imaginary character. Thus, as much as you would like to call it, "just a game" it's probably not, otherwise you wouldn't feel proud of what you had accomplished. You may understand that the world of play is imaginary, but remember you carry your real self into that world. AJ |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2015 at 22:54
|
Brids1, I can answer what happens as that is a matter of history. But whether it should or should not happen, that is a matter of ethics. So what do you think? AJ |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 03:07
|
What if this is what I enjoy? What if I like to play the game as I do and all the negative responses to my comments are enjoyable to me? What if I like to crusade in the world of ideas and try to get game players everywhere to remember that behind each avatar is a real person? You see, I don't think the discussions I'm having are with imaginary beings. I think the thoughts expressed are real people thinking and real people writing. Thus, if I change their mind about one thing or another, I'm doing what I like to do and having fun doing it. My problem is when people choose to bring weapons to the discussion that are inappropriate to the discussion. Suppose you and I are having a debate and I am "losing"...meaning I'm seeing that I'm not putting up an argument good enough to "defeat" your argument. Does that mean I'm not right? Maybe, maybe not. In any case, there is one way I can respond that is civil. I can do a better job of arguing by gathering more information, more evidence, and more reasonable arguments. And there is one way I can respond that is uncivil: I can simply go over to the game and take out a few of your cities. Which course of action is appropriate? Which course has a chance of actually showing you that you are wrong and that I am right? Will you be persuaded once all your cities are destroyed and you've left the game for other lands? Will that help the game be better? Will it mean other players will engage me in debates? Will it encourage anything but silence and fear? You cannot have civil debate when debaters are allowed to threaten each other. You cannot have reasonable discourse if you use other weapons than reason. I enjoy reasonable debate and learn much from it. Do you? AJ |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2015 at 19:54
|
The following was in a separate thread which Rikoo thought too redundant. I think not, but he has the ability to do what he thinks best, so I've moved it to here. Sorry if it clutters this discussion somewhat. AJ ----------------------------------------------------------------- A definition is not a sacred thing. It is, though, a touchstone upon which disagreements can be adjudicated. There are those who would like me to quit quoting definitions. They somehow seem to think that a word can mean whatever they want it to mean and if it doesn't exactly fit, well, too bad. Let us imagine a world where that is the norm. Where if I call you a "racist pig" I don't have to mean what you think the term means. In that world the phrase, "racist pig" can mean "nice guy" to me and something else to you. In which case the defense for slander would be "when I called you a 'racist pig' I meant "nice guy." After which everybody breaths better because obviously "racist pig' could mean exactly whatever I want it to mean. Or perhaps, you call me a "racist pig" and you believe that it means "nice guy." How clever. Now I can't legally declare that you have slandered me because a word can mean whatever you want...right? But I can send my armies. And if I destroy all your cities and run you out of the game have I proved that the phrase "racist pig" cannot mean "nice guy?" Of course not. Silencing the debate ends the debate and no conclusions can be drawn. So how do we avoid the scenarios described here? How do we decide what a word means when it's in dispute. Ahhh...you got it! We use the dictionary. In formal debate a debater who does not have reasonable support for key terms -- reasonable support meaning authoritative definitions -- is usually at a great disadvantage. In the end then, I will continue to quote and use definitions from authoritative sources. If you are wise you too will stop denigrating their use as it seems pretty silly to me for you to be arguing with Webster. I think he has more clout in the realm definitions than you. |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2015 at 20:11
| i make baked goods all the time, i raise plants and animals for food, i play games, yes i am human but as i said we are playing a game. when they gone we continue and even when we humans are gone we continue...i suggest u make dinner for your family tonight and garnish it to make it look wonderful..omg i hope its eaten and then its gone....try playing the game competitively....u might enjoy even losing as long as u are playing....there are outs in baseball! |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2015 at 01:12
|
...and like baseball, if you lose in Illy, you play again. I understand the interest in posting in a forum discussion but it gets to a point where redundant becomes the nicest thing to say about it; eventually one is posting just to read what one wrote. Maybe evolve the discussion a bit? Try this one: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/elgea-and-bl_topic6440.html#87292" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/elgea-and-bl_topic6440.html#87292 ------------- |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2015 at 01:13
|
Posted By: Ricky
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2015 at 02:52
| I think the important question here is: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 18:18
It's a sandbox...right? Thus, to you what is "competitive" may not be to me what is "competitive." I am playing it competitively by my style. What you are really saying, I think, is that we shouldn't put so much energy and emotion into the game because "it's just a game." Fine....so why would anybody take what was said in the forum and race over to the game to "prove" their point by "competing" with the one who said what you didn't like? It's just a forum post for heaven's sake. See the problem? You think we should all chill out because "it's just a game" and take our "punishment" for whatever we say in the forums because it not really that important. The same argument can be made about what is said in the forums since they can easily be ignored ... a lot more easily than armies at your city walls I might observe, so why shouldn't those reading what they don't like just chill out? After all, "it's just the forum." You can't have it a one way street where those in the forums are supposed to roll over and let those who have no answer to arguments made, decide to take it to a different playing field, so to speak. If I lose at baseball I don't have the right to drop a bowling ball on your foot the next night when we are bowling. The forums are competitive if we discuss and argue. To let it spill over into the game is to change the basis of the competition and the field of the competition. If you want fairness and competition you have to have some ground rules, one of which is you don't take the baseball loss to the bowling alley. In the world of debate and discussion it has never been considered the "proof" of a point to reach over and slap your opponent silly. I don't think it should be allowed here either. AJ |
Posted By: phoenixfire
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 18:28
What if the point is that you can slap your opponent silly, in that case providing an example of you actually doing it is pretty good proof.
|
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 18:32
| yes its a game, the forum is part of it. no the game is not that important...too bad u dont play it like that cause it will always bother you or you will make it more than a game...seems you already have????? winks...gosh i hate to play monopoly with you..... |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 19:24
"if you lose in Illy, you play again?" Let's see now....you are painting a wonderful painting and after six months of work I run over it with a truck..."but hey, if you lose it you can just repaint it!" right? It's always easy to tell a person to start over when it's not you who is doing the restarting. Baseball has 9 innings (usually) and ends with one or the other teams is ahead. Illy is an open ended thing that really doesn't end and so it is one ongoing game which, the longer you play, the more you have invested in time, energy, creativity --- and thus the more you stand to lose if you are driven out of the game. And people have been driven out of the game. So let's evolve the discussion by admitting what many seem to want to minimize...the harm of having people destroy what you've spent months and years building, even if it's "just a game." A painting, after all, is "just a painting." Nobody who is a builder wants their buildings, real or imaginary, needlessly destroyed. And at the same time some of us want to have a free discussion without risking more than our intellectual pride. I looked at the post and wasn't sure why it was relevant. Perhaps I missed something. I'll look again and let you know. AJ |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 19:27
|
LOL. I'll give you that narrow victory. Yes, if the point is you are trying to prove that you can slap your opponent silly, and you proceed to do so, it may be relevant and actually proof. Fortunately, the proof of most points in debate isn't proved by such a demonstration. AJ |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 20:01
The forum is NOT part of the game. If it were you would be required to do SOMETHING in the forum, and since you are not, it's completely separate. The game can be played without the forum, the forum is not integrated into the game other than a call to it, and, technically, it's probably in a different part of the hard drive and may be even on a different server. In fact, if I come to the forum as my alt, I sign in as my main. I even wondering if you left the game you couldn't continue in the forum. Underneath this whole discussion is the question of boundaries. What are the boundaries for behavior between the game and the forum? Are there any? If everything devolves into force (which many seem to think the appropriate venue for all questions) then you may be right. But since Illy is a sandbox it would be nice if some of us could "play" the forums based upon our powers of persuasion (or at least argument) rather than devolving into the force of armies (imaginary to be sure). In civil discussion it is generally accepted that personal attacks are illogical and show bad faith. How much more so attacks on the hard work the player has put into his or her cities? Thus, the question, as you seem to indicate is: "Is the forum an extension of the game?" I've put some of my reasons for believing that it is not in the preceding paragraph. I will now add some thoughts about why it should not be treated as an extension of the game even if it technically may be so. First, the forum is a place of discussion. Which do you prefer, an open and honest debate of ideas, or a constricted one in which challenging ideas are kept at a minimum out of fear of reprisal? Second, the forum is a place of civility in discussion. The general rules put up by the owners of the forum allow for debate but include a lot about uncivil behaviors and rules to combat such behaviors as "bullying." They wouldn't have those rules if they did not wish there to be a bit of civility in the forums. Third, and finally, which do you think should be the proper response to a non-threatening and appropriate post: the opponent to the post should just go out and drive the player from the game, or the opponent should put forth his or her reasons and reasoning about the question at hand? Which do you think pushes the discussion toward discovery and understanding more? If you attack my cities for what I say in the forums, would you consider that a better type of "debate" and more civil? I think not. Thus, ideally speaking, a place for open, good and civil discussion and debate enhances the game if you consider it a part of the game, and enhances the game even if it's not part of the game. Whether technically part or not, the threat and intimidation implied if you make it too much a part of the game destroys the civility of the discussion and thus lessens the quality of the Illy experience for those who wish to discuss things in a open, good and civil manner. I would humbly suggest that those who do not wish to discuss things in such a manner should start their own threads and title them "Discussion Brawl" so we know the level of intellectual honesty and civility to expect should we wander in. AJ |
Posted By: mjc2
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 21:04
actually it IS part of the game, if it wasn't then the Devs would not require you to have an in game account to register as a forum member and the Devs would also allow you to log on anonymously. whether you participate in this part of the game is your own choice but simply because most players do not participate in this part does not mean it is not part of the game. and your answer to the question of "what are the boundaries between the forum and the rest of the game" that is spelled out in the ToS, read them. as for members of the forum that no longer play, that is irrelevant, anyone can check to see if they are still playing and if they are not they can ignore them. but also you need to consider that there are some members of the "illy community" that helped found the conventions that most of us play by today that no longer play themselves. the opinions of these players do still effect how players that play today do things simply because those players were extremely well respected and honestly in my opinion the number of troops you have does not matter because there is always someone with more, what really matters is how well you are respected as a player by the other players of this game. if you want to have a location to actually debate stuff for debate's sake then i suggest you start/join a blog instead of looking for that type of audience in a game. most people that join games just want to have fun and don't want to argue unless they have troops backing them up. (which you need to remember, simply because someone stops responding to you doesn't mean they agree with you it may just mean they see no reason to waste their time arguing with you anymore) as to your argument that someone can drive someone else from the game because of a post that is "non-threatening and appropriate." there are plenty of large decent players in this game that you can ask for assistance, if your post was really "non-threatening and appropriate" you would not be the one driven out, it would be the player trying to drive you out which is all part of the "Meta Game"
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2015 at 02:30
Second, it was a metaphor. I'm not going to defend it ad infinitum because it just isn't that important. It was an addition to a previous post and if you wish to dismiss it with a flippant attitude, so be it. Third, I wonder, if it is so important that what you do in a game be preserved, why would you play one with potential to have all your work wiped out? ------------- |
Posted By: jcx
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2015 at 09:35
+ 1 to both you! Illyriad have its own Beauty and it never restarts... the faith of your cities depends on YOU and not on your leaders or even the alliance. Here's my tips if you are afraid of getting wiped-out:
I respect those player who lives peacefully and want to engage more in combat. Illy and BL have a room for everybody, lets enjoy it. ------------- Disclaimer: The above is jcx|orcboy's personal opinion and is not the opinion or policy of Harmless? [H?] or of the little green men that have been following him all day. jcx in H? | orcboy in H? |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2015 at 02:19
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that if somebody wants to play what Rikoo calls an "aggressive style" I need to play the "head in the sand stork" style. In other words, the players of the game have no real say so about what that "aggressive style" means and if I don't have the power or the friends to defend me, well too bad for me? Somehow telling players that if they want to play peacefully they have to restrict themselves to also being nice quiet people sitting in the corner doing but what you say they can do, "build their cities." Of course, if they happen to build their cities in the wrong place, happen to say something, even in jest, in the wrong place to the wrong person, they risk the "aggressive play" because, well, you have determined that's how the game will be and is being played? Seems to me all I'm hearing is a circular argument. "You must play this way because you must play this way." How about justifying from an ethical framework why I should allow you to determine what the "right" way to play Illy is. As for the forum being a part of the game, as I said in my post, even if it is, which I don't believe to be true, but even if it is, the ethics of "crossover" competition is not based upon any ethical standard of which I'm aware. I laid out my ethical standard, how about somebody doing the same for the other side. Start with the basis of your ethics and argue from that. As for the potential for having my work wiped out, I assume that my postings in the forums would be treated with civility. The question we are facing is whether that assumption should be the standard of the forums or some other less tasteful standard should apply. Much of what this and other discussions have talked about is the issue of civility in the forums. I've laid out my ethics re why I think the forums should remain a civil "side" to the game, others have not yet done so. Finally, I'm in Illy. I didn't plan to come here to start a bunch of debates, but when I saw what I saw I thought it was important enough to the community to take up. When a person sees something he thinks is dangerous to the group would you really rather have him slip out the side door and not warn the group? I think not. So I bring up what I bring up and argue what I argue because I care about the community. I assume you present counter-arguments for the same reason. If not I would humbly suggest you move to a game where war is required and nobody expects it to be a sandbox. (see how the very argument you suggest by your statements can be turned around and logically applied to yourself?) AJ AJ |
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2015 at 02:33
I think its rather safe to say I've restarted more than anyone here, all of them perfectly willing, all of them equally enjoyable. In fact, I would offer up that I've had more fun than I normally would have, by just keeping to one account in either a peacenik or war focused alliance. ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2015 at 02:34
I believe what you are suggesting the community to do, is dangerous to the game itself. ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Berde
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2015 at 07:34
Congratulations. You've figured out how reality works in a game (or in many instances, RL) where "might makes right." This game wasn't designed to be Farmville. If it was, they wouldn't have included military. Thousands of prey species have learned to camouflage themselves and to keep quiet when danger is near.
|
Posted By: Mona Lisa
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2015 at 21:10
|
Illy is a sandbox game. In many ways, politics in Illy progress as politics do anywhere. Of course there is a "meta" game underneath the visible surface, understanding it, or failing to, is often the path to success or "resetting" ..... knowing what buttons to press and what happens when they are , is simply a process of observation, understanding the currents of relations between alliances and individuals. It is neither good , nor bad.. it simply .. is. Big visible blunders, militarily or socially, happen when one ignores the "metagame" . . . surprisingly just like in real life ! The wonders of a sandbox. . . Tinkering in the "metagame" is actually reasonably entertaining for some... ( given the stagnant state of Illy's evolution / 13+ month drought of Dev sponsored tourney action) . . . often more so than visible game itself.... View it all as a grand social experiment ! ------------- 
|
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2015 at 23:21
|
Well, I'm glad we understand each other. You want Illy to reflect "real life" with all it's nastiness and unfairness, and I want to hold it to a higher standard where all players are as free as they can be to play it as they wish. Of course there are places where people have to give up something for that to happen...I'm just hoping they are willing to do so out of respect for other players. And as for the military, of course the USE of military is a choice that you make. It's not a requirement. So if the game is a "military" game it's because you choose to make it so. To me the "sandbox" doesn't imply a "military" sandbox, but a place where each player can, within the requirements of the rules, set up his or her own goals and style of play. Forcing others to engage in military actions only reflects your underlying belief that it's a "military game" and thus, imposes your vision upon others unjustly and without need. Try this, try actually getting together with those who want it to be a military game and playing that way. War amongst yourselves all you wish and to your hearts content. That would be a radical step to take. But I fear you may not really want war, because you do not wish to loose so much fighting somebody of equal size. That's normal for those who "intimidate, threaten and coerce." On the other hand, if you are not one of those type of people, why aren't you going to war with the other warriors? I hear you think it a lot of fun, so please, have fun!...just not at my expense. I agree with you re the "meta-game" Mona, and I agree that this is, in one way, part of that "game." But like all games there are rules and I think one of the "rules" of this "meta-game" ought to be respect for the opinions of others and believing your point of view so well thought out and so well presented that you have no need to convince by the sword. Those who turn to the sword as persuasion do so usually because they don't believe they've gotten the best of the argument. That's why I think it's bad faith to engage in a debate, perceive the other side has made too many points, and reach over and slap them. The slap may make you feel better, but it's a tacit admission that you lost the debate. My advice: if you don't have the arguments to persuade people you are right, don't enter the debate. If you do, then have some faith that your arguments will prevail and eventually the other side will be ignored or shut up. AJ AJ |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2015 at 23:27
|
ES2. If you think I'm suggesting something then you might be closer to the point than you think. I'm arguing that it is the community of Illy that has the final word on what will be socially allowed (the "informal rules") and not the individual alliances. It may be that the voice of Illy may eventually speak and say, "land claims are okay" or it may be that they are going to say "land claims be gone." I'm hoping for the latter. But it does not mean that the whole of Illy has to march it's armies and have a big war. If enough people speak out and the reputation of the land claimers suffers (as it has already) or they come to see the logic of my and others' arguments against land claims, it may be that they just abandon the practice out of necessity or persuasion. It does not necessarily mean an armed conflict...though, sadly, it does seem to be going that way. AJ |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2015 at 23:58
i do hope someone eventually starts a genuine discussion of the merits of these things, because the idea of marking territory is not going away, it only goes underground for a time and then resurfaces elsewhere. large alliances like to enforce land claims based on physical presence because they have an inherent advantage in existing footprint; they oppose marking territory because it inhibits their spread and complicates the process of their own settlement. smaller but growing alliances prefer to mark out territory because it enhances their ability to resist a larger force and allows them to concentrate their numbers in one area for a tournament or other conflict. opponents ought to stop talking as if marking land inhibits "free play". in one case a player is free to settle in an area even if s/he is not welcome; in the other, a player is free to settle near alliance mates even on a crowded map. different players are advantaged or disadvantaged by the *method* of the claims. as most players belong to large alliances, or alliances with large affiliates, most players will feel a certain unease with the change. but then, most players belong to large alliances *because* the existing state of play favours them. to me, that seems like something less than a moral imperative. |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2015 at 05:05
------------- |
Posted By: Ashmadia
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2015 at 13:31
Ok ajq, enough, i can't take any more. You just crossed my borders in 2 messages. The problem is that enough people spoke out, though you didn't ever came to see the logic of their arguments for the land claims and it doesn't seem like you will just abandon your practice out of necessity of persuasion. Even if you did indeed recognize some of the points presented to you, you are determined to win the argument, no matter what. Even if you need to spawn a sea of words. You accuse of circulating while doing it yourself and never backing from your original viewpoints a single bit (you pre-determined they are the "strongest" and about to "prevail"). Well, to my understanding, that is neither civil discussion, nor an enjoyable one, if you happen to allow stubborn talkers discuss. That's what happened in your previous topic, i never concluded throughout it that it reached somewhere, and that's what happens here as well. And with your kind of stubbornness you even try to accuse someone using the sword against you that they don't have the strongest points and that by using the sword they admit it themselves. You are right every time, everyone else is wrong and if they use the sword against you they admit you were right. What if (and excuse me for even daring to ask) you are wrong in the first place...? You get to be right after all! Guess you already knew that, though, it's the kind of logic you posses were you logically win every time. And, by the way, this IS a sandbox game, where you try to box behaviours and styles of play by imposing your ways of a higher standard of gameplay with freedom and equality. In a fantasy world (not imaginary, although it is imaginary as well), where you can find orcs that don't even know what school is, and are already wielding axes and hammers.... And this is going to circulate as long as you circulate that a warrior cannot and should not force others to engage in military actions (directly or indirectly). |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2015 at 16:39
|
Calm down, Ash. The tone seems to be saying the real person behind the avatar is upset. Am I wrong? Maybe that's why I care about the issue of land claims. Maybe I keep imagining what a player feels like when he or she is told to remove themselves or be removed, especially when the game allows for the move and some large alliance has decided for them where and where they cannot settle. Such, even "in-game" threats seem to be to cross an ethical line. You may like to read my latest installment in the thread on usefulness of land claims as it's a total recap of what I see as the argument FOR land claims. Correct it where you will and can as I won't rebut it until it's can't be taken as a "straw man" I set up. This thread, though, is about meta-discussion, not land claims....though of course that seems to be a hot topic and can serve as a nice "example" of both how too and how not to discuss things. Maybe I did see the logic of their arguments but found a different set of arguments persuading me that there is a bigger picture or at least a different perspective here. Maybe the arguments just weren't persuasive in themselves. Should one simply say nothing when insufficient arguments are presented and let those, perhaps less informed, believe those weaker arguments? I think not. The point of discussion is to express perspectives and try to move people to your perspective...or to move yourself to a different perspective if the arguments warrant such a move. Proper debate may be full of mistakes, anger, even silly things, but in the end the purpose is persuasion...a foundational value of most civilized cultures. That the opposition to a position is unable to persuade their opponents means only one of three things: the arguments weren't strong enough (meaning the arguments of the opposition were stronger), the arguments weren't presented in a manner clear enough or basic enough to persuade (you should really think about this as you have to begin not what what you believe, but what THEY believe); or the debater has so much personally at stake that they cannot admit they are mistaken. In civil debate it is not kosher to accuse your opponent of the last of these unless you can quote something he/she said like, "No matter what you say, I won't believe you!"...which is a dumb thing to say in my book. That leaves the other two. I might suggest that the arguments for the opposition have not yet been as clearly laid out as they may think. They are here and there and sometimes appear clearly, but they don't address the question is a systematic way, as I have attempted to do in my last post. Remember, if you start with the same premises as I, and use perfect logic, you will arrive at either the same place as I or reveal how my logic is not logical. But he who begins with faulty premises and has perfect logic will always end up in error. AJ |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2015 at 18:44
I'd be interested to know, Abstractdream, of the extent of the claim they are going to make, and the evidence for your saying that's their intent. You may be right, but without that evidence I'm skeptical. More to the point, in this discussion of meta-discussion, i.e. the "proper" ways to discuss things in a civil debate and the limits to argument and counter-argument, it may be that saying something like that is failing in the responsibility as a debater. Since, if what you say is true, it would probably impact the reputation of STOMP negatively. Therefore, making such a claim should be done with evidence in hand, don't you think? Just a thought. Good debate is built on evidence as much as possible, and while conjecture is important, it is less strong than actual evidence. AJ |
Posted By: Captain Kindly
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2015 at 18:59
|
AJ, I really don't understand you, man. First you start a Crusade against alliances claiming a piece of land to ensure their own growth future, and in some cases (like SIN) that of their confeds. That is even older than my account is. You get reasonable and logical replies, and while you claim to understand them, yet you don't seem to be accepting them. Now you start about Metadiscussion, something probably even older than land claims. The whole Diplomatic page in Illy is just the tip of the iceberg there, and it always has been. That is the stuff Alliance Leaders do. Talking between leaders, either through IGM or Skype is more common than you think. Again, I have no idea what you want to achieve with all these long winded posts, except for trying to get the last word in. FWIW, during the last few weeks, I noted this stuff is downing the respect you have from other players a lot. It sure has been doing that for me. Maybe you should change your name into Don Quixote, and find yourself a Sancho Panza... ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/60249" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2015 at 19:24
First, it's not considered good debating style to personally attack your opponent. I regret your frustration but perhaps it would be better expressed in personal correspondence than in a public forum. But to answer your questions, or at least the questions you imply (I think).... The conclusion that the replies are "reasonable and logical" may be true as far as they go. Logic is limited by the premises upon which it is based. You may have noticed that not many have figured out that we are starting with different premises and thus, even if our logic is perfect, will probably arrive at differing conclusions. Hopefully we can then discuss the premises upon which we base our conclusions...something I've repeatedly stated...though, to be honest, I've not yet couched the whole thing in terms of premises. Second, do only alliance leaders discuss? Is the forum only for alliance leaders? My alt is the leader of an alliance...does that count? While I'm certainly glad that alliance leaders talk, I wish to bring in all the players of Illy. After all, they too should have a voice, even if it isn't one which marches in step to what their alliances leaders may or may say. Calling me long winded is a negative comment. Generally if one is considered long winded it's usually because he or she is making complex sentences where short ones would do. I generally do write complex sentences, but in good discussion distinctions must be made and can only be made with proper grammar and syntax. That often means more complexity in the argument and thus more complexity in the writing style. I'm sorry if you have had some difficulty in stomaching that. As for getting the last word, should one quit debating in the middle of a debate? If the debate is truly over then perhaps the audience should leave the one who will not shut up on the stage and leave the auditorium. That people are reading and responding to my posts means they wish to have the last word, or I wish to have the last word, or the debate is not over. I would suggest the last of these as the most probable. As for my reputation, I'm sorry your frustration over my utterances has caused you lower your expectations of myself. Sadly though, you may just started with too high an opinion in the first place and now "the water is finding it's own level." On the other hand, why do some continue to debate the issues? If my reputation is sinking then obviously eventually I'll be writing to an audience of one...and empty auditorium. So if you really think debate is over you can leave now. After all, if your arguments have been irrefutable they, by definition, can't be refuted and why keep repeating yourself? Leave me on the stage alone talking to myself...LOL. Of course your response just emphasizes the reality that we are not avatars and it's not "just a game." Whoever you may be in real life you are the one feeling frustrated. That's important. We are dealing with human activities and thus, should act like civil human beings, despite what the game allows. That's one of the premises with which I start. AJ |
Posted By: Ashmadia
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2015 at 19:51
|
I am calm aj, i just stated why i cannot participate in a conversation with you any more. I'm irritated by your stance and have grown tired of it. Therefore, i'm inclined to follow your advice and leave you on the stage alone, victorious in your fight of words. PS: You really need evidence to justify abstractdream's statement, that Stomps is actually trying to enforce a zone 2 claim, like it is defined by TVM, on the whole land? I mean, seriously? |
Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2015 at 19:54
| I think ajq thinks this is the Last Post Wins thread... I must inform you that someone won that a long time ago! |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2015 at 21:22
|
Sorry Ash if I missed something in TVM's post. That can happen. And I may have missed something in STOMP's utterances. That too can happen. However, in debate if you are asked for your evidence you are expected to bring it out. It is not the job of your opponent to do the research for you. In addition, a "Zone 2" claim, a TVM uses the term, does not extend to all of Illy, as STOMP seems to be addressing, so there is some discontinuity. This is a thread on what is proper and improper in discussion. Thus, my asking for his evidence, even if I had it in my back pocket, is just a proper technique of debate. Jane. Really? You could have just not said that and it would not have been missed by me. But of course, to get the last word in a debate you have to actually debate. Attacking your opponents motives is definitely not good style. Remember, if you can't address the question at hand you cannot substitute a different question and expect to have carried your point. The question is: what is appropriate in a civil discussion, not "is AJ trying to get the last word." Do feel free to start a thread on that subject if you like. AJ |
Posted By: mjc2
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2015 at 22:09
|
ajq. ok since you really need proof of STOMP making a "zone 2" land claim as TVM uses the term lets see how TVM uses the term and then read the STOMP alliance profile TVMs definition: posted on STOMP alliance profile: so in essence a TVM zone 2 land claim means "no one can claim land here" and STOMP says "no one can claim land anywhere" so as for the extent of STOMPs zone 2 land claim, that is all of illyraid.
|
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 21 Jun 2015 at 18:40
|
A bit convoluted but of course, the "Zone 2" is in effect for all of Illy even if STOMP doesn't claim it. TVM's definition actually says they are going to administer part of Illy. STOMP says they are going to protect ALL of Illy and that is what we all should be doing. I seriously doubt Pico and the gang are actually claiming anything, but instead, using a pragmatic statement to make the point that ALL of Illyriad needs protecting from the land grabbers (don't you love that term?), and they intend to do that protecting. More power to them. See what happens when you actually present your evidence? You get an nice explanation about how you aren't interpreting it correctly.....and that too is part of civil debate. AJ |
Posted By: Mona Lisa
Date Posted: 21 Jun 2015 at 23:00
|
Utopian dreams of ideal debates resolving conflict is whimsical at best and presumes far too much of both sides. it would be a uniquely rare event for the side losing the rhetorical debate to be aware of that fact let alone be willing to modify their behavior over it. Far more consistent is the doubling down of irrationality and entrenchment of opposing views. It also takes more than just being abstractly "right" to be able to actually carry that through militarily. Just because someone may be (subjectively) "right" does not mean they have the political (or military) savvy to be able to achieve their goals. Fools often rush in when prudence would suggest otherwise. In illy there have really not been that many "big" wars, since I have been playing (Oct 2011), there really has only been 2 "world" wars, the "Consone War" and "The Great War" , a host of minor conflicts that all grossly pale in comparison. The real holders of military might honestly do not exercise it very often, and tend to show amazing restraint in the face of often times great temptation. The blathering about the mightly constantly crushing the meek in Illy is pure fantasy. My heart truly bleeds for the oppressed in Illy... who are they now? I seem to have missed the memo... -------------
|
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 21 Jun 2015 at 23:19
|
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 21 Jun 2015 at 23:49
Proof of bullying, threats, coercion and intimidation: 
|
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2015 at 00:13
|
"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 |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2015 at 00:15
|
One more thing. Somebody asked something to the effect of "where are the weak and downtrodden in Illy?" To which I answer: usually gone. And that's my point. You don't find the living among those who have been slain. AJ |
Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2015 at 00:51
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.
|
Posted By: Sun Tzu
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2015 at 08:15
| You have now been razed. Would you care to fold? |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2015 at 15:12
|
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 |
Posted By: Sun Tzu
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2015 at 20:21
| Good luck |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2015 at 18:11
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 |
Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2015 at 19:12
| Deleted by Jane |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2015 at 19:13
|
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. |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2015 at 20:08
I find it curious that in your metaphor, the meta-game is Monopoly, and Illyriad armies are equivalent to physical violence. To my way of thinking, a better metaphor is that Illyriad = Monopoly, and the meta-game talk = table talk during the Monopoly game. Thus the "ethical" consequences play out very differently for me. If I am playing Monopoly with some strangers, and one of them makes disagreeable remarks towards me, I think it is completely reasonable to inflict a Monopoly consequence on them. For example, if a player rudely criticized my unwillingness to sell them Boardwalk to complete their Park Place pair, I would take great pleasure in permanently depriving them of Boardwalk. If their accusations escalated to cowardice and collusion, that would only harden my resolve that they would never complete the blue monopoly, and thus lose the game. In fact, since Monopoly is a sociable board game, I would construe rude accusations as a breach of interpersonal social etiquette, while at the same time viewing competitive consequences as a completely valid action within the game. I see the table talk as the primarily human interaction, and the game as the primarily competitive interaction. It remains curious that you seem to view the table talk as the game itself, and equate actions taken within the game as actions taken against humans (via their digital in-game possessions). I am interested to know if you play competitive games like poker and Catan with your real life friends, and how you view the game relative to your real life relationships. My own friends are quite cutthroat competitors at board games, as am I. It has never been suggested that systematically defeating someone at Risk has any real life ethical implications, even in the absence of rowdy table talk. |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2015 at 19:42
|
Brandmeister, as usual, has come up with a very good analysis. But when he says my view is "is wholly impractical to maintain" he gives away the game. You see, if you read my comments I keep coming up with what OUGHT to be the case, not what IS the case. Obviously what IS the case for a lot of people is acceptable, even advantageous. To crooks the fact that they can break into a garage and steal my car is advantageous. But is it ethical? I keep asking, and ask again: "If Illy players are real people, how OUGHT they be treated." Of course, if you attempt to answer that question with honesty you will fall short of saying they should be treated with the disrespect bullying treats them. Now as for the meta-game / game part of his analysis, it's very good. However, in most games, including your own competitive ones, there are limits to what you can socially do and what you cannot. I might suggest that if your poker game devolved into a brawl you would no longer play poker with those guys, or at least would instigate some social rules about what can and cannot be done/said as part of the game. In most social situations we receive feedback regarding our behaviors in more or less incremental degrees. A frown, some silence, a look, all reflect how what you just did or said has affected your standing, or you relationships to the others around the table. And you usually adjust your behavior in accordance to those social boundaries. In Illy our avatars can't easily communicate with such subtleties. So we use words. Now the use of words, Brandmeister seems to think, is part of the game, and I agree. But just as there are in game socially acceptable rules (he describes it as, "I would construe rude accusations as a breach of interpersonal social etiquette") we disagree that "competitive consequences as a completely valid action within the game.") So we have a point of contention. Now the question is one of validity. Is it valid to respond in a game to the comments in the meta-game? The answer, surprisingly, is "sometimes yes." "If "trash talk" is part of some cultures and social arrangements, then probably it's okay. However, in situations where you don't know that it is because you don't know the people with whom you are dealing, or there are so many of them in the competition that you can't assume you aren't going to offend somebody, needless trash talk, is probably not respectful of the larger community. And since respect is how we SHOULD treat others, "trash talk" should NOT be acceptable to anyone in Illy. In fact the rules of GC are meant to avoid needless offense and no doubt even Rikoo would step in if it got to a certain point (though I would suggest he shouldn't if he wants to be consistent in allowing "aggressive game play"). But of course, this misses the actual point Brandmeister is trying to make, right? He's not asking if "trash talk" should be allowed or to what degree, but if it should be responded to with in game options. To start with, Brandmeisters assertion that "the game as the primarily competitive interaction" is begging the question. In a sandbox environment you may compete with others for some goal or resource, or you may go off in a corner and compete, basically, with only yourself. That's the nature of the sandbox. One of the points of contention between myself and others is that I wish to allow those who wish to play "solo" (for lack of a better term perhaps) to do so. Land claims impinge upon their rights and thus are not respectful to them. But this too, doesn't really address the question Brandmeister raises. I think, to be fair, the question might be phrased: "SHOULD the comments made (strictly speaking) "outside the game," result in "punishment" within the game? First, that depends on the comments I would think. As Brandmeister says, "disagreeable remarks toward me" are, I assume, remarks denigrating him as a real person. Or, as he puts it elsewhere, "rude accusations." The key here is that the comments are "rude" and "disagreeable remarks toward me." By putting forth the worst case scenario, Brandmeister makes a straw man of the argument. (Before you say I've done the same, think carefully as you may find what appears to be a "straw man" is actually not...walk carefully here, very carefully). By using the worst case scenario he seems to think it covers the entire corpus of words said in the game or in the "metagame" (forums and the like). But we are not speaking of "rude" or "disagreeable remarks" toward another, but actual reasonably civil points made in a discussion or debate. By exaggerating the nature of the remarks that would trigger in game retaliation Brandmeister performs a slight of hand (inadvertently I would suppose). So, given that the comments are civil and reasonable, does he think it acceptable to use in game mechanics to "punish" his debating opponent? Debate is a social thing. Two or more people using words to.... what? Usually to either win their point or to illuminate a subject...or both. If the words fail to do what they wish, is it acceptable to then choose a different weapon? Again, not "will they choose a different weapon (for some will and some won't) but SHOULD they do so? In the long history of humans in general most societies thought words should be used to resolve linguistic differences of opinion and not swords. Yes, there were times and places where swords were used. But we do not look at those times and places with pride for a reason. For when reason fails we are back to being just animals. And finally, "It has never been suggested that systematically defeating someone at Risk has any real life ethical implications, even in the absence of rowdy table talk" only leaves me with two observations: first Risk is a game of hours and thus the "pain" of being defeated is the loss of a few hours AND it's a war game...thus you expect to be defeated or not. Illy is not a war game but a game where each person can choose how they wish to play it and as long as they respect the other players (something I think land claiming does not do), they are free to make war or not, as they choose. Second Illy takes a lot more time and energy than RISK and thus, when you lose what you have often spent years building because somebody in GC thought your opinion of the Brewers was silly or in the forums you spoke your piece with general civility but they disagreed with you, that does cause more pain than a two hour RISK game in which you have been told what it means to win or lose. My point about Monopoly was not about a game, but a social interaction. In social interactions it is not acceptable to reach out an punch somebody when they speak civilly and with reason, even if you don't like what they say. Again we OUGHT to respect those who respect us and since a civil and reasonable statement is the most respectful method of communication we OUGHT to refrain from punishment in game or out. That's respect. AJ |
Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2015 at 20:07
| The more I read from ajq, the less I believe he actually understand Illyriad's metagame. He constantly compares game mechanics to real life fist fights when they are in no way the same thing. He compares sieging someone in Illyriad with unpopular views to punching someone in the face during Monopoly. When it's more like buying up all the ideal properties so your opponent has no choice but to pay you all their money and lose the game. Please stop comparing sieges in Illyriad to punching a person in the face in real life. It is not the same thing, and repeatedly making the comparison just makes you look foolish. |
Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2015 at 20:24
| To elaborate further, neither the Monopoly or poker examples are valid because punching someone in the face is not a game mechanism. Your whole argument is flawed around this point. For the poker example, it's more like bluffing really well and winning all your friends' money. It may piss them off, but it's an acceptable strategy within the game. If you don't like it, work to improve your own game. Learn his tells. Or in Illy build some armies! |
Posted By: Princess Botchface
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2015 at 21:05
|
But Jane͵ when a player from Stark sent me a cav raid, I looked out my window and there were actually men on horses with spears coming to kill me! Or maybe that was the salvia... Nobody is buying your sophistry anymore aj. I can hardly stand to do more than skim your windy false equivalencies at this point. |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2015 at 23:58
|
Jane, "bluffing" in poker is a recognized strategy. Any book on poker
will discuss it. Bullying is not a game mechanic nor a recognized
strategy in any game and in many places the devs have tried to put rules
into things to avoid rude and obnoxious behaviors. Bullying is rude
and obnoxious. Now if you want to discuss why and in what way land
claims are NOT bullying, go ahead. Take a good shot at it. Sadly you
have yet to answer the basic question, so here it is (again): "If Illy
players are real people how OUGHT they be treated?" And Princess Botchface, you have accused me of sophistry and stated that you "can hardly stand to do more than skim your windy false equivalencies" but you don't take the time to refute them? That's just lazy thinking in my book. So here I'll lay one out for you and you use the space to show how the two situations are significantly non equivocal. A bunch of real people around a board game. They are playing a game of spaces and one person declares that, "from now on none of you can land on that space or I'll make it my job to run you out of the game." Some people, and perhaps you, will see it as perfectly acceptable. But here's the problem: it's intimidation by threats of coercion. The game says all players can land on that space. The game determines what can and cannot be done. The players use of intimidation by threatening coercion to keep people off that space is using social means to influence in-game results. The game does not mention such behaviors. It does not say, "claim as many spaces as you can and intimidate by threats of coercion" if you can. It's part of what Jane calls the "meta-game." Right? Why do you think all those players are sitting around that giant board? To have fun? I think that's a pretty clear. When the player decided to use intimidation by threats of coercion -- a "meta-game" tactic --was he allowing everyone to have fun? Since we assume he didn't ASK if the behavior would be okay BEFORE he made his declaration we can only assume he decided to engage in the meta-game tactic without allowing the players around the table to express their wishes. When he engaged in a behavior that clearly gives him an advantage over others (assuming the space has some advantage to him) we know he is using bullying to win the game. Now using bullying (intimidation by threats of (in game) coercion) without getting agreement by the social group, he was not respecting (or even concerning himself with respecting) the wishes they might have. But don't take my word for it. The designers of most games, especially mmorg's put a lot of effort into making the game as pleasant as possible. Most games have strict rules governing how players interact. In Illy you can't even talk about whole vast areas even if you do so civilly. And there's a reason for that. Most game designers want the players, all the players or as many of the players as possible, to have fun playing. Adding intimidation by threats of (in-game) coercion when the game designers want to avoid the unpleasantness of that type of meta game experience AND seems to have gone out of the way to avoid unpleasant interactions between players, is disrespecting the players and the game itself. Now that's our imaginary game where people are sitting across from each other. Let's turn to Illy. Are there many people playing Illy? Yep. Are they, generally speaking, sitting? Yep. Are they looking at the "game board" on their screen? Yep, that too. So we have a bunch of people sitting around a very big game board playing a game in which the rules say you own a piece of property in the game when you settle that piece of property, right? The only difference between this and the imaginary game is proximity. Those gamers are in the same room, we are not. Those gamers can physically hit each other, while we cannot. Okay, two differences. You see any more? Proximity is only an accident of history and technology. We could, presumably, all be playing in the same room. So it's a pretty flimsy basis for declaring the two games different. The physical abuse scenario holds more promise and has been put forth as a basic and fundamental difference between Illy and some imaginary real game. But it's a false dichotomy. First, what is pain? Physical and psychological pain activate the same pain receptors in the brain to a large degree. Physical pain may fade faster than psychological or not, depending on the severity and type. Now if you bump me on the street and I fall down, I get up, brush myself off and perhaps limp for a day or two. Painful but I heal. Why? Because it didn't cost me much. Some discomfort for a few days but that's it. Now if the bump on the street sent me to a hospital and I lay in bed for months, that pain would be more severe and cost me more because I would lose more in time and energy spent. From this we can simply say that the value of the loss influences the intensity and duration of the pain. The more I think I've lost or have indeed lost, the more painful the experience and, presumably, the longer it lasts. How much pain do you think a new player of Illy has when, in the first week somebody runs over them and steals all they have? It's interesting to note that in the first year the players of Illy put a stop to robbing new players. The players instituted a new player friendly policy and enforced it when necessary. But that's a side line here. By our own measure of pain, just presented, a person who is in Illy only a few days and is robbed probably feels less pain than than a person who has put a year of work into his or her account -- though the new player might be more inclined to go somewhere else, it has to be said. But if the person who has been "removed" understands that the attack is justified, do you think it as painful as if he or she were attacked unjustly? And if the "remover" has so little respect for the player who has had his or her cities taken, do you think the one losing the cities feels anything? Do you think they are pained? Annoyed? Angry? So here it is. Both the imaginary game and Illy are played around a "board" by a bunch of real people. Both have rules about capturing a piece of real estate. Both have players who decide on their own that they want a particular piece of real estate and are willing to intimidate by threats of coercion to get it. Now of course, both games do allow for the person who wants the real estate to get it using certain game mechanics so there is no real need to issue the threat...unless perhaps they don't think you can compete within the game rules and capture what they want that way...then you might be tempted to impose upon other with intimidation by threats of coercion....which is the justification used by land claimers for issuing the declarations they issued. In both you are dealing with real people. In both something is claimed and grabbed by using intimidation by threats of coercion. In both the use of in game punishment is threatened and in both that in game punishment is unjust and disrespectful of the players and the game itself. Finally, Princess Botchface, what sophistry have I enacted here? I've laid out the parallelisms and dealt with the differences to show that the two are the same thing. I've even moved the type of "punishment" from physical to emotional to make the two games the same as much as possible AND I've dealt with the idea that some players don't mind the tactics used by the one claiming the space by intimidation. You have claimed sophistry. A definition of sophistry:" the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving." I might suggest, if you have the time to accuse, you take the time to show cause for the accusation. Which arguments have I used that are fallacious? Be specific as a general "lot's of them" only means you ought to be able to find one as an example. And how do you know I intend to deceive? That's even harder to prove one would think. AJ |
Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2015 at 00:09
| No one is bullying you. Your entire definition of bullying is completely wrong. If a player sieges you because he dislikes your position on land claims, this is not bullying. It is merely another mechanism for debate that the game allows. No one has made any physical threats against you, and your comparisons are minimizing the experiences of those people in the world who have legitimately been bullied. |
Posted By: Raco
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2015 at 00:14
GM Rikoo said earlier. I you have proofs about bullying, contac him.
Who did that?
Reading the same lies over, and over again. Also there is some people who obtains pleasure with pain
 |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2015 at 00:44
therefore
on a personal note, i think the argument is plainly ridiculous, which is why i don't care to pursue it any further, nor do i think it represents the position of Stomp, et al...which means it has very little impact on illyriad overall. (i am, however, looking into a standing desk just in case.) |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2015 at 06:08
This. Exactly this. Withholding the needed Monopoly card, while punitive and obviously disagreeable to the unruly table-talker, is nowhere near equivalent to punching them in the face. I find it laughable that systematically inflicting an undesirable game result within a game (with the consequences existing wholly within the game) could be construed as bullying. The very idea is profoundly clueless.
|
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2015 at 13:31
Okay, back to square 1. The definition of "bullying" contains: the use of intimidation, threats and coercion to get ones own way. Do land claims intimidate: When you say "I will remove you if you do what I don't want you to do" that's intimidation. If you disagree please do more than say, "that's wrong." "he said, she said" responses nothing to propel he argument forward...but maybe you don't want the argument to progress because you do not wish to admit where it's going to logically lead? Do land claims threaten: If you don't stay out of our area we will "remove" you. Pretty clear to me. But in case it's too much, here's an explanation: The "threat"is in the action the person says they will do if you don't act as they wish. The threat is the "removal." The action they wish you to take is to stay out of their territory. I hope this clarifies the situation for you, Jane, because you have yet to actually deal with the question "are land claims a form of bullying. Instead you keep repeating "is not!" like a juvenile might do. And, Do land claims coerce? Not yet, that I know of. But if they haven't yet, one supposes they will only because to issue a threat and then not follow through is to be a paper tiger. So do lay out the logic for the readers as to how you get from "If you settle here we will remove you" to "that's not bullying." I've laid out pretty clearly why I think it IS bullying. Your job would be, in a civil and courageous debate, to actually lay out specifically why the definition doesn't fit as I put it. That I don't understand the "meta-game" of Illy is silly. I understand it fine, thank you. I understand that some people want to play the bully. Some people want to pretend that what they do doesn't hurt anybody, doesn't affect the real people behind the avatars, or worse, that if it does, that's just tough luck. That is how it IS. I keep asking you to answer how it OUGHT to be if the players of Illy are real people. You do know the difference between IS and OUGHT don't you? Most people live lives, I think, in which they "go along to get along." They don't rock the boat out of fear that their involvement in the affairs of their social world, if they disagree with how that world acts and is run, will cost them. I can attest that to do what I'm doing is not for the feint of heart. My goal, Jane, is to CHANGE the meta-game. I am attempting to change it in two ways. First to stop the bullying. Second, to give freedom of expression to all players of illy in the forums and GC. People keep saying that if somebody says what they don't like in GC that person has to suffer the consequences in the actual game. Why? Why should I, if I say I like vanilla and you don't like the fact that I like vanilla, suffer for my view? If I express it civilly what motivates you to think yourself justified to send armies at my cities? There is no logic that says (outside of slander) that I have any logical reason to try to answer an intellectual question with force. It's considered inappropriate in just about every philosophy and religion in the history of the world yet there are still people who apparently can't make the distinction. It boggles the mind. And the fact that it's a game doesn't make any difference as the bullying is not required by the game mechanics and is the bullying of real people. Prove either of these statements wrong if you can. So if you think the meta-game subservient to the actual game, then take the challenge and engage in this part of the meta-game by actually answering the question: "If the players of Illy are real people how OUGHT they be treated?" Don't be shy, lay out your logic and definitions and show me how I'm in error. Either that or be consistent and honest and change you mind and agree with me. Come on, it won't hurt too much. AJ |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2015 at 13:44
|
And furthermore. Have you ever been bullied? I have. Did you enjoy it? No? I thought not. So why would you even think of justifying the same activities in this game? If bullying in the real world causes pain, why would you think it causes less pain in the world of Illy? Can you crawl into my skin and feel the degree of pain I feel or don't feel? You make the mistake of thinking that the bullying is about what is lost. Bullying is not about loss but about unjust domination. Nothing in the game mechanics forces a person to bully others. Nothing. Bullying is a choice and you have no ability to see how much it hurts or doesn't hurt. In fact, I would suggest that some people are hurt more by in-game bullying than other might be in out of game bullying. You've seen it before, no doubt. Some people are bullied and just walk away, shake it off, and ignore it. It's still unpleasant but they seem to be fairly resilient. Others are bullied and they fall apart. The range of responses to bullying in the real world varies from one person to another and telling a person who has been bullied to "suck it up" is not helpful, but belittling, as if their sensitivity to being bullied is the problem rather than the bully. You lay out the words "No one has made any physical threats against you, and your comparisons are minimizing the experiences of those people in the world who have legitimately been bullied." as if you actually understand the subject of bullying, but obviously you are under the delusion that YOU can judge the level of suffering a person OUGHT to feel when bullied, in the game or not. I wish I were half that good at crawling into peoples minds and perceiving what they are feeling and how strongly they feel it. And logically, of course, "legitimate" begs the question. I'm claiming it's bullying in the game and you say it's not. But if I'm right then the bullying of which I speak IS legitimate bullying and thus your point about minimizing "legitimate" bullying assumes you've proven your point before you've even tried to prove it. We are back to the same question: how are land claims NOT bullying? And, as I've said before, bullying is NOT restricted to physical pain. To think so just shows a naivete that undermines you authority to speak on the subject. Do your homework and study the issue before you pontificate upon it. If you like I can give you some references that would be helpful...starting with a dictionary. AJ |
Posted By: Raco
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2015 at 13:53
| Again, if you are being bullied, tell GM Rikoo about it. |
Posted By: Malek
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2015 at 13:54
Now you are just belittling people. You portray yourself as someone as who is intellectually superior to us common folk and you look down on everyone that does not agree with you and bombard them with exceedingly lengthy posts. No one cares what you think anymore, you have faded into irrelevancy and I hope this post also gets shut down as I (and probably most of the community) am really over all of this entire nonsense. Why dont you just move on do something more constructive with your time than type these stupid posts that no one reads (I did not read this post, just the last sentence) or cares about. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2015 at 16:34
some players spend real money and all spend real time in illyriad building their digital empires. when they suffer reverses, things don't go as planned, they encounter resistance, some of those assets will be lost. this is all the "fault" of other players; there is no other agency. but that is the nature of the sandbox. it is a risk, a gamble...and as in other gambling games, do not bet what you cannot bear to lose. a gambler who cannot obey that maxim is not being victimised by anyone but him/herself. so my answer is this: If the players of Illy are real people, they ought to be allowed to play a game as a game, within the rules and otherwise according to their own consciences, without being shamed because another player is not mature enough to manage his/her own wager. your misaligned metaphors are all in the service, not of a better discussion, but of channeling readers toward the answer you have ordained for them. shame on you for using only the trappings of logic rather than the substance of it. |
Posted By: Bobtron
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2015 at 00:04
Belittle [bih-lit-l] make (someone or something) seem unimportant. ------------- I support the Undying Flame! |
Posted By: GM Rikoo
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2015 at 01:42
|
Shutting down the thread. Repeated topics that we have covered in other threads. Any more discussions over whether or not playing the game is bullying will just be deleted. Thank you, Rikoo ------------- Illyriad Community Manager / Public Relations / community@illyriad.co.uk |