A lot of what I do some consider "preaching."   Given the negative connotations of the word I might take offense, but generally I get their point.  In an age where people are often rigorously protected from the harm a negative word might do to their self concept, where "self-esteem" is the holy grail of human potential, to hear someone suggest, sometimes quite strongly, that they aren't quite up to snuff can be pretty discomforting.  Nobody likes a critic.

On the other hand, nobody likes a person so self-centered that they cannot see the damage they are doing to themselves and/or to those around them either.  The insensitive, the narcissistic, and the "I don't give a...." attitude some people display, and all people display from time to time, does little for community harmony and peace.  But to ignore your short-comings and your failures in the name of keeping a "healthy self-concept" is a really, really damaging thing if you are, in fact a real jerk.  Wisdom would say it's not a good thing to be blind to your own short comings.

When I address young people, as I'm sometimes called upon to do, I generally tell them there are only two ways to become wise.  You can travel through life "getting kicked in the seat of the pants" when you screw up and learn your lessons that way, or you can listen to those who have traveled ahead of you getting "kicked in the seat of the pants."  They have learned.  And they have a map of all the places you can screw up.   And you know what?  They want you to have the map!  So take the map, please!    Seeing people succeed and having a hand in helping them reach their potential is what many, and maybe most people love about getting old.  So the old declare where the pit falls are, sometimes passionately, not because they want to take away your "good time," but because they want you to have a "good life."  Exchanging a a "good life" for a "good time,"  is not a healthy bargain.

Now of course, one can preach a lot of things, some of them just plain wrong.  I can subscribe to the idea that only blue-eyed blonds are valuable (I have blue eyes but not the 'right' hair color, alas), but if I subscribe to it and try to preach it, pretty soon somebody is going to ask me for WHY I believe it to be so (that is if they even give me the time of the day in the first place).  This is how you know the map is genuine.  It is supported by a lot of evidence from various sources, including experience, authorities and good reasoning.  But you only know that if you as "WHY" somebody thinks something is true.

This "WHY" is what civil discussion is all about.  It is the form of "preaching" I try to stimulate by my little missives, and it is important to me and to a lot of other people.  It is important because it is what makes us able, as human beings, to get along without violence (or at least without as much violence perhaps).  Without it the world would be involved in a giant shouting match that would soon dissolve into "wars and rumors of wars."  There is a reason "civil" is in "civilization" and "civilized."

So I "preach," I "cajole,"  I "challenge" and sometimes I make mistakes and go too far.  It takes, I think, a bit of courage to be out there "preaching."  And any time you stick your neck out to try something really new and possibly dangerous there is a good chance you will come back headless.  That's a risk I'm willing to take, though my neck might beg to differ.

I told you why I do this.  I care.  I care about people and what they think and how they act.  Not because I think them good or bad, but because the wise do not live as the unwise and the world is better for it.  Wisdom is the application of knowledge to a situation to reach a goal.  I try to get people to ponder and think about things so that they come to what will be truly their own goals and conclusions instead of the goals and conclusions they inherit unquestioned, from their community.  I don't believe the community is necessarily wrong.  But how would anyone in the community know if nobody questioned?  In any case, I do it because when a person has thought through the issues for themselves, looked at the evidences, the reasoning, examined the underlying premises; when they have done their own homework, they usually quit echoing the mantra's of their group and begin to speak in their own voice.  And if they are brave souls, they sometimes change for the better.

But of course, you may not care much about others, or perhaps care about them and express your caring in other ways.  I "preach" because I care.  I think we humans are made up of three core "realities": the physical, the social and the mental.  A fully living person is healthy in all three and needs to exercise in all three.  At least that is my philosophy.  But most of us are pretty lazy, usually in at least two of the three "realities."

Most of us do not exercise our bodies.  Some of us do not exercise our minds.  And some of us do not maintain social relationships very well.  "Preaching," at least as I try to do it, is one way to exercise the mind.  And it has the added benefit, if you "preach" in public, of sometimes engaging other minds so that both benefit.  When that happens those engaged often become more aware, more 'awake' to life itself. 

So I "preach" to wake people up, including myself.  If I did this in a philosophical forum where people are already awake, or at least more people seem to be awake, what good would that do?   That would be like a doctor setting up practice among the healthy.  So here I am, in Illyriad.  In a forum where most subjects are not designed to engage on any deep level of speculation.  Thus, in a forum which, to my way of thinking, does not awaken the mind in ways that are important not only in Illyriad, but in real life as well.  

So if you come across something written, by myself or by some other "preacher," be open minded enough to take it seriously.  Ponder it, Think about it and what it means.  Gather your thoughts, organize your evidence, marshal your arguments and step up onto your own soap box.  Then, if you have a moment, look over at the my soap box and wave.  I would like that.

 AJ

Well, how about that.  I'm not sure were, in my comments, I "answered with insults, jokes."  I'm re-reading it now and can't find any joke.  The opening paragraph is a rebuttal of your claim that "nobody is interested" in high minded philosophy.  I presented evidence to the contrary, evidence which actually disproves your point.  That's debate, not insult or joking.

You do have a very good point about my over the top reference to my debating experience.  Upon reflection I do regret very much the display of hubris.  The only 'excuse' I can offer is that I hate competitions where the contestants are unevenly matched AND I did not remember your background, which would be a very good match, indeed.  For my stupidity I apologize. 

I got your point in the basketball analogy but countered with the claim that a basketball game is a closed venue, while each thread of the forum is independent and nobody has to "attend." Again, denying venue of an analogy is a typical debating tactic.  You claimed a venue of a captive audience expecting a basketball game and I countered with a free audience expecting a philosophical discourse (only because they, I assume, know my style).

As for a joke or insult, I see little in what I said.  If you see in the paragraph about what I think you might think a debate should be as some form of insult, I apologize.  The comment about what you might be envisioning could be read as an insult I guess, and if so I am truly sorry.  It was not meant to be but was offered as a poorly worded distinction between a formal and informal debate format.

Given all this I wonder if you might reconsider what you have written as it was, I think, rather harsh..  The debate I proposed was perfectly serious. 

AJ

[The following was written in response to Shulnaks' post and, because I thought his post somewhat about land claims more than anything else, intended to post this reply in the land claims discussion...only to find that the devs had closed it.  I then tried to post it here but found that the text did not word wrap properly when pasted from Word.  But I've now remedied the problem, and so here it is.  Do try to read Shulnak's well written response before this as you will miss much if you haven't.  Thanks...AJ]

Shulnak

On the subject of free speech you have a point that our speech is restricted by the devs.  But there is unbridled speech, and free speech.  The difference is that in, “unbridled speech” there are no rules.  Few to no places allow “unbridled” speech. “Free speech" is restricted in many ways by the authorities and there are layers of authority.  The devs put forth some ways, and the community of players does in other ways.  For instance, you cannot, in Illy, claim that somebody attacked you if you don’t have absolute proof.  That is a player restriction, not a developer restriction.  My point is that currently some players wish to restrict what can and cannot be said in the forums.  It’s that some things which can be said according the rules of the developers, some player wish to punish for having been said...which means they effectively wish to greatly narrow the level of free speech currently allowed.  I do hope this clarifies things for you.

When you speak of bullying you claim the definition would “dictate that any in-game attacks here may be a form of coercion.”  The definition of bullying I have been using is: “the use of intimidation by threats of coercion to force others to do as you say.”  The operative words in the sentence are “use” and "intimidation."  It’s the use of “intimidation” which relies on “threats of coercion” to “force” others to do what you wish. So it’s not about in-game attacks but about the intimidation of other players by threatening them with coercion should they not do what you wish or do what you do not wish (and of course, the implied use of force). 

However, after some thought I will give you some credit for a good point you may not have intended to imply, but did, to me anyway.  In game attacks may be of two kinds.  One player attacks another, both of whom are playing the game as a war game.  In that scenario where wars are declared and both sides are playing as warriors, it may be allowable for one side to intimidate by threats of coercion, the other.  But in the second, where a warrior attacks a non warrior (a player who has done nothing to indicate he or she wishes to play the game as a warrior) the use of intimidation by threats of coercion would be a violation of that players rights to play the game fully and freely as he or she wished.  It would be that because whatever threat the would be, it would be an restriction on the non warring player, a restriction which the developers have the right to issue, but which, I think, the players should only have the right to issue by general and pretty much complete consensus.

When you say, “attacks on your virtual holdings here are not attacks on you personally”I wonder what you would say to an artist who, having painted a bunch of paintings, wakes up one morning to find all his or her work slashed to pieces.  How do you think he or she would feel?  Of course, a painting is tangible.  Well, actually, it’s not. There is a canvas, some paint, and a frame perhaps, but the painting is the arrangement of the pigment on the page and thus, it’s really somewhat imaginary.  But even if you consider the painting itself a tangible, what is lost is not just the painting and it’s value, but also the time, the energy, and the creativity needed to create the painting.

So here we have some pixels on the page.  We click and type and go this way or that to create our kingdoms.  Sometimes it takes years and hours and hours of work  What, pray tell, is the difference between what we have created and what the painter created? Are not both a creation of a real human being? I would really like to hear your rebuttal of this point because a whole lot of my argument depends on my insistence that what we create in Illy is important to us and thus, of value to us enough that when it is destroyed we suffer.

So when you say, “A personal attack goes above and beyond what is displayed in the sandbox; attacking a person's real world gender, job, family, lifestyle choices,” you might like to add, “and creative endeavors” as well, and thus void the argument.  Which means I disagree with your definition of a personal attack.  To me it’s personal if it’s not something I signed up for and it unjustly comes to me anyway, be it in Illy or out.  And when players attack other players for disagreeing with them in the forums that is, in my opinion, even worse than attempting to restrict their allowable areas of settlement as you are then restricting what they can say in a place not directly part of the game. 

When you say, “here you are risking some digits on a screen” you are implying that those “digits on a screen” have some value, but far less than some, presumably, oil in the canvas.  But who are you to tell any player how much his or here “digits on a screen” should be worth?  If you think I'm condescending or "preachy" what is it when you assume you know the value of what something 'should' be worth to me?  This is one of those situations where it's pretty obvious who is trying to impose his valuations on others, isn't it?  The problem with measuring the value of something is that the value resides in the one valuing, not in thing itself.  So while you may value your digits on the screen (and the days, hours and months it took to make them as they are), worth little, and even my digits on the screen worth little, you have no right to tell how I should value my digits on the screen.  I may have an entirely different valuation.  Mine may be a lot higher than yours, or a lot lower.  The point is, if I value my “digits on the screen” a lot higher than you and you threaten to take those digits away if I don’t do as you say, or avoid saying what you don’t want me to say, you force me to play the game your way because I value my digits on the screen.  If I don’t you will take those “digits on the screen” away from me.  

In the real world the cities are real. In the real world when debate breaks down lives can be lost.  But in both the real world and in Illyriad something can be lost if debate isn’t free but subjected to one side or the other threatening the holdings of the other in an effort, one supposes of shutting them up.

Again, when you say, “this is a fantasy,” I have to ask if you, as you sit at your device playing Illy, are a fantasy?  The dividing line between you and your imagination doesn’t exist.  Your imagination is part of you and any imaginary situation you may find yourself in, is responded to by your body in much the same way as any situation.  The brain releases the same chemicals, the heart rate and pulse change, and so on and so on, though, generally but not always, to a lesser degree.  If it’s a fantasy entirely why do real bodies respond the way they do?  In addition, that the developers designed the game to allow warfare can not be argued.  But they also designed the game so that you could play with no warfare as well.  No player MUST engage in warfare as the goal of the game is set by each player.  My argument is that when you begin to use intimidation by threats of coercion on non-warfare players (those who have given no indication that they wish to go to war), you are forcing them to play as warriors or accept your determination of where they will play.  The same thing happens in the forums when you start attacking players for what they say in the forums.   

As for Lord of the Rings and my comments upon it, I have heard quite a number of people speak of how, after reading them, they dreamed of being more noble etc...Yours is the first time I’ve ever heard of anyone being fascinated by the Orcs, but that’s exactly my point in one way.  The human mind possess a fantastic imagination and if it’s used to reinforce negative behaviors there is a good chance that some players (out of the millions) will be more inclined to act badly.  I’ve already covered a suggested mechanism for how an online aggressive style of play might shape an adolescents view of himself or herself, so I will not repeat it here.  But I will say the current research leans in that direction.

As for what you do in your offline world, I don’t know.  But I suspect that if you engage in bullying behaviors in Illy you might find it easier to do so in the offline world.  As I’ve said before, just as an athlete envisions his or her performance and uses his or her imagination to train himself or herself to perform almost by instinct a certain way in the real competition, so too, in some minor way perhaps, we train ourselves in our gaming.  We train ourselves, to see ourselves differently and thus to respond to things in the offline world differently and that includes moral choices.  You might like to read some of the studies on moral choices in gaming and how people are effected when they play games where imaginary moral choices must be made.  Often those who make “immoral” choices have a lower view of themselves after playing “immorally” for a long period of time and are more inclined to "punish" fellow test subjects more often and with harsher punishments in the time immediately after playing one of those games.

All I’m asking is that you do not “ruthlessly impose [your] will on other people” by using intimidation by threats of coercion.  Other people come to Illyriad to play other styles. They are real people and they feel real things (even if they may feel them less intensely than some situations in the offline world).  So if, as you say, you, “have a strong aversion to causing people harm” and your actions cause people harm who wish to play a different style, why do it?  Especially if there is no necessity for causing the harm (as they are not warriors) and the goals of having a secure area for your alliance can be had within the already established rules?  Once you begin to see that what you are doing in Illyriad is you who is doing it (and not your inanimate avatar) and that it is being done to another real person, morals matter.  And once real morals matter in a game we need to determine how to be both moral and have fun.  My solution is to make war against the willing and leave the unwilling alone.  My solution allows each player the freedom to choose their own course, (one definition of what a sandbox is) within the bounds of real morality.  But I'm open to other suggestions.  Maybe you have some?

Characters created in Illy make no choices.  Period.  You, the player make the choices.  You may make them in accordance with how you feel the character you have developed would make them, but even then you are responsible for those choices.  If they harm real people it’s you who is responsible for the harm, not the pixels on the page.  When I attack NPC’s there are no real players behind those pixels so I am not doing anything but manipulating pixels on a page. 

When you say you “cannot ever agree that the avatars we see are 100% synonymous with real people” must ask why it is important that you do or do not accept that “avatars are 100% synonymous with real people?” Is it not that if the avatars are even close to 100% synonymous with the people you would be obligated to actually act morally?  There are, of course, two types of avatars: NPC’s and Players.  The NPC’s are nothing but pixels on the page and do not feel a thing.  They are inanimate.  The players, on the other hand, are represented in the game by avatars, but the avatars do not actually feel a thing either.  Because they too are inanimate objects.  So the only object which can feel, think, and control actions, is the player who is, very much a real person.  If we followed your logic and lived in the 1800’s we could justify burning anything by Mark Twain.  Mark Twain wasn’t a living person.  He had no legal status and he made no decisions.  He represented Samuel Clemens as his “pen name” (read avatar in the literary world of the day) but it was Samuel Clemens who received the royalties and who was lauded for his work.  “Mark Twain” didn’t exist except as ink on the page.  Thus, if you decided to “wipe out” all the books on the bookshelf by “Mark Twain” by your logic there would be nobody harmed as there would be real person behind the books. (Ignoring for the sake of argument all other parties having a role in the production and distribution of the books).  But if you did burn all the books by “Mark Twain” who would be hurt?  Samuel Clemens, of course.  “Mark Twain” was 100% Samuel Clemens.

So my avatar is called “Ajqtrz.”  Ajqtrz is just pixels on the page representing me, the one typing these lines. Does my avatar feel anything?  Does he think anything?  Does he make any moral choices, or make any decisions?  Of course not.  When you, attack for something that was done by an avatar, by you logic you are being irrational since avatars do nothing and thus there is no culpability.  Ajqtrz didn’t do and can’t do anything.  Didn’t speak, didn’t type, didn’t send forces here, there or anywhere, I, the player did.  So if you are attacking Ajqtrz and insist that avatars are not the players, you are attacking an innocent avatar.  But if you still feel justified for attacking the avatar is it not exactly because you assume that to attack my avatar is to attack me?  And I am, you might wish to know, a very real person.

Well, you are right that the Buddha held that this world is pretty meaningless...even an illusion.  But he also said the in spite of the illusion of desire (from which we seek to rid ourselves) we should still treat others as we would want to be treated. (Almost all great religious leaders have said this, BTW).  And if you adopt the distinction between willing warriors and non-warriors you can even make this work, as warriors want to make war and thus to make war on a warrior as a warrior is treating them as they wish to be treated. 

I don’t believe I am “continuously” claiming people are attacking [me] directly or [my] morals” but of course, they are attacking me through my cities.  That can’t be argued.  Why they are attacking is subject to some discussion but I’ll leave that for another day except to address your explanation, which is that I am “directly impinging on their enjoyment.”

First, what wars have I launched?  What armies have I sent to unsuspecting and innocent players?  I would certainly agree that those actions would be “directly impinging” on those players. To “directly impinge” would mean, I think, something they could not avoid.  Let’s see...other than a few times in GC (and usually very minor), everything I’ve done or said on the matter was and is done in the forums.  Thus, any “direct” impingement must come from their going to the forums and reading what I’ve said.  Now here’s the thing.  If you go to the forums and know that you will probably not like what I have to say or how I say it, ... why would you go except you find the "fight there" enjoyable to some degree?  The nicest thing about the forums that any 'warfare' there is freely chosen.  It would be nice if I could somehow choose to ignore those attacking me on the 'game board' but alas, there I am not offered the same choice as in the forums.  Thus, any impingement upon the enjoyment of others is indirect because it’s incidental...meaning it could have been easily avoided, and thus was a choice by the one doing the reading. 

Second, which do you think is more of an impingement upon a player’s enjoyment?  Writing something in a forum post that which can be completely ignored, or sending armies to attack a players cities because of something written in the forums?  If the attacker had the freedom to read or not and what is written does not directly impinge on the attackers cities how is it that that is impinging and directly attacking his cities is not?  All this concern for a players enjoyment is actually a good thing and the reason I’ve said a lot of what I’ve said.  It’s not enjoyable to all players to live with players who use intimidation by threats of coercion.  It’s not enjoyable to be attacked for speaking out against the use of intimidation by threats of coercion.  Who then, is directly impinging other players enjoyment?  If I plant a city in the middle of your claim and you follow through on your threat of removal, who is impinging on whom?  Last time I checked nobody elected your alliance to make the rules in that part of the world and thus, by claiming the right to do so, you directly impinge on the enjoyment of others by intimidating them with threats of coercion if they try to settle in “your” area.  Are your really concerned with impingement?  If so, drop your land claims and stop attacking people who write in the forums.  It's really that simple.

In Illyriad there have been some acceptable reasons for retaliation.  Sometimes players say things they can’t make a reasonable argument for having said...insults come to mind...and sometimes they do things like settle too close or harvest too close to somebody’s city.  These are acceptable reasons for retaliation.  But if somebody, like myself, engages in a strong argument, one with some merit, and the other side decides to retaliate by taking cities, as they have, the question is why the attackers have tried to move the battle to another venue?  Is it not that they don't have the arguments necessary to persuade the reader that they are right?  If they had the arguments, and they were as strong as they claim would it not be that they would just put them forth and let them speak for themselves.  Even if I were not convinced would not the arguments be convincing enough and thus, I'd be left shouting in the corner?  By their actions they give up the ground of the argument when they attempt to use coercion on the game board to 'win' the battle in the forums.  And I would suggest that their choice of battlefields is exactly because they have lost to the logic of their opponent but cannot bring themselves to admit it.  And they often accuse me of too much hubris. That's the problem with commitments to a cause, it often blinds you to the wrongness of that cause.  And when you compound you commitment by expanding the battle to other venues you only show that you don't think you have or can win in the forums and thus need to shift the battle to where you think you can "win."

In any case, allowing attacks on people for what they say in the forums, does say that you had better say very little to nothing in response to the actions of the larger players. In other words, keep a low profile and let the game be controlled by the desires of the warriors. That’s really the only choice once you allow intimidation by threats of retaliation in the forums. At that point you take away the sandbox and put the warrior class in charge. I’m for free sandbox where all players can do, as much as possible, what they please.  The “as much as possible” simply means they aren’t restricted from doing something that has little or no impact upon other players. 

The paragraph that says I’m “painting myself” as an “intellectual martyr” is interesting.  You see, if you knock me back to the newb ring is that not being martyred?  And if you are doing so because of my intellectual pursuits, then that would, in fact, make me an “intellectual martyr” would it not?   Even if I did have the hubris to make such a claim, which I don’t think I’ve done (except by implication, perhaps), wouldn’t my claim be substantiated?  And you claim that I wish to make the claim of being an “intellectual martyr” because “people do not respond in the fashion that wish.”  So what you are saying by that is, I think, that when people disagree with me I think they are....hmmm....taking my life (figuratively speaking to be sure)?  If that were true I’d be laughing too.  But evidence is evidence and the evidence that somebody is trying to “martyr” me is pretty strong. 

Brandmeister,

A "straw man" argument is an argument in which you set up your opponents point of view with analogies that are weak, and then burn it down.  But I get what you are saying.  You think my "art" analogy does not fit the argument against land claims as a form of bullying.  But I said to Jejune, it's not if the cities are "art" or not, but that they are valued or not.  The analogy of the destroyed paintings was limited to the parallels between creation and intangible work or arrangement of pigments and pixels.  The cities in Illyriad may or may not be artistic to their creators, but they do have some value to some of those creators. 

So, because you seem to like the 'direct' approach better, lets try that.  Illyriad is an imaginary world where real people come and are represented in that digital world by their avatar.  The avatar is just a marker for the player and makes no decisions, feels nothing and does nothing.  The player is present in that world electronically to his or her avatar, controlling that avatar via keyboard, touch screen, or mouse.  The player issues commands, decides where to build and what to build and what his or her goals in the game will be.  The player has, within the bounds of the game mechanics, complete control of his or her avatar.

Having established that the player is present in the imaginary world, what are the possible outcomes for said player?  The player can make decisions about where to build a city, for one.  The game mechanics say he or she can build anywhere there is an empty location.  Thus, he or she is free to settle anywhere.

When a player settles in a spot and proceeds to build his or her city, it takes real time for the player to increase the size of the city, and it takes decisions about what to build, what to research, and in what order.  Thus, the player has an investment in time and perhaps in real money spent on prestige. 

So a player invests his time and talents in building cities.  The value he or she gets from having accomplished whatever he or she has accomplished is subjective.  Each player values his or her efforts personally. 

So far though, we've spoken of an individual player as if he or she were playing alone.  But the imaginary space called Illyriad is shared by thousands of other players.  Each has goals and each builds imaginary cities where he or she wishes for different reasons.  The complex of reasons a player uses to make decisions is probably idiosyncratic and probably no two players follow the exact same path.  Within the set of goals the players have are goals which come into conflict.  When that happens some players choose to negotiate their differences peacefully, some not.  Some players make accommodations for the differences, but a few will not.   The point is, there can be conflict.

The conflict in the game may produce wars.  It may not.  The imaginary world of Illyriad does not require warfare, but some players have the goal of proving their skills as a warrior by engaging in wars and frankly, see nothing wrong declaring war at even the most inoffensive error.  On the other hand, the imaginary world of Illyriad does not require any player to be protected from the attacks of his or her fellow players either, but most players refrain from unjustified attacks anyway.  Which brings me to the following point.

The players of Illyriad have, in effect, increased the length of the rainbow of protection AND of the restricted area a person can settle.  These may not be universally respected, but if someone does violate these rules they can expect reprisals in the form of "an eye for an eye."  It is one of the hallmarks of the community that they have increased the freedom of the small players by offering some implied protection from players who would, because they are small, take advantage of their size to intimidate them, coerce them, or otherwise bully them.  Because of these two generally accepted rules enforcement usually creates a very limited war or no war at all.

Now when it comes to land claims, the same structure is apparent.  With land claims you have groups of players playing in a way which impinges on the range of settlement of other players.    In the rule regarding how close you can settle to another player the players of Illy have established a restriction not in the game mechanics.  In a land claim a group of players are attempting to establish a restriction also not in the game mechanics.  Both attempts to establish a restriction  have been met with resistance.  The "ten square" rule prevailed because eventually everyone realized it had benefits for almost all players and thought the benefits out weighed the costs, or perhaps, the cost of fighting it.
 
In any case, land claims are a different animal.  The ten square rule pretty much benefits all equally.  The land claim rule benefits a few at the expense of the many.  The ten square rule effects only the area settled, the land claim grabs much, much larger tracts of unsettled land and thus effects the amount of land available for settlement much more.  And finally, the land claim rule is a expressly designed to intimidate by threats of coercion, while the ten square rule, like all generally accepted rules, implies coercion, but because it appears to be equally beneficial to all players, is readily accepted by most players.  This is why I support the 10 square rule and not land claims.  The 10 square rule is a benefit to all as it reduces crowding and the competition for resources, while land claims are a benefit to only a few and reduce the amount of resources (land and all the various things on it) for the rest of us.  In the end I oppose land claims because of the willingness of those who establish them to engage in acts of bullying to establish them.  No rational person can look at the definition of bullying and the threat to remove should you settle in the claimed area and not see that the actions fit the definition.  This is NOT saying that the land claimers are bully's in their offline selves, but only that they are playing the role of bully in Illyriad.

So we come to the heart of the problem.  Do we wish to allow the role of "bully" to be one of the roles a player can take in Illyriad?  Do we wish for players to use "intimidation by threats of coercion" to accomplish their goals even against the non-warriors?  And if so, to what degree and under what circumstances.

First, the role of "bully" is not a bad role if it's "just a game."  However, Illyriad is not "just a game" but a bunch of games being played in a common area.  I have heard and seen bullying in Illyriad, and seen players leave because of it.   You might be a trader and be playing some economic game.  You might be a "most cities in Illyriad" player and be focused on building large cities and a lot of them.  You might be a GC bunny and the purpose of being here is to have fun in GC.  There are all kinds of goals and thus, all kinds of "games" being played.  So it's not "just a game," it's more of a playground in which a lot of different games are being played. 
So how do we negotiate the great mix of games in Illyriad?

First, we recognize that probably all players in Illyriad just want to have fun.

Second, we recognize that conflict can happen but that with some accommodations we can avoid unnecessary conflict.

Third, we recognize that some players are here for conflict and that therefore, we need to allow for conflict.

Fourth, we recognize that fun for some players does not include conflict.

Fifth, we compromise.  Instead of using intimidation by threats of coercion against all players, we reserve those tactics for those who, by their actions, have shown that they wish to be warriors.

Sixth, we compromise.  Instead of requiring all players to be warriors, we leave the non-warrior alone to play how and where they wish without intimidation by threats of coercion.

Now to do these things the land claimers need only step back and do one thing, and that is drop the intimidation by threats of coercion and allow anyone who wishes to settle in 'their" area to settle there as long as that player has not been a warrior.  Most players are pretty clear about their intentions, and most alliances even more clear.  Certainly a "Declaration of Homeland" ought to be notice enough for other players of their intention to "claim" an area.  And if they follow up the declaration with actually settling the area, they can probably "capture" it under the 10 square rule anyway.

That's my direct answer with only a passing reference to the playground metaphor.  Hope you find it more 'direct' Brandmeister.

Now for the direct discussion regarding the freedom to speak in the forums.

First, as Belegor has said many times, "speech has consequences."  Nobody recognizes that more than I.  But the question is, what kind of speech should have what kind of consequences?

Since we are humans I appeal to the traditions by which we govern speech in the West, and a lot of other places as well. 

In the western tradition, about three hundred years ago, if you insulted somebody (at least the upper classes anyway), you could be challenged to a duel.  The basis of the challenge had to be a clear cut insult by one party toward the other, one which could not be easily explained as  bad wording or whatever.  And it had to be sufficient enough to damage the honor of the one insulted.  It was felt that the only way to repair the honor of the man was through a physical duel.  That was 300 years ago.

As the Enlightenment progressed it was recognized that a duel was not effective in answering the charges put forth by the insult.  There was still the question of if the one insulted was a cad or not.  In other words, the physical competition was measuring something that did not answer the question before the public at all.  And it was wasteful and tended to make things worse.  

So, if the wisdom of Western civilization left behind the "trial by force" as barbaric three hundred years ago, and most importantly, as ineffective in truly resolving issues, why do some in Illy still think it a good thing?

The answer to that, I think, has to be in the vision of the self people carry into Illy.  Every player I've ever met wants to win.  We are highly a competitive people and we want to come out at the end of the day as winners. 

What this means is that some people have a sense of what the "meta-rules" of the game are and what it means to truly win, that are different than others.  Just as in real life there are players in sports who will create new and sometimes questionable ways to compete, so too in Illy.  When that happens in real life, the league gets together and asks if the new method is good for the game or not and makes a rule in accordance to what they find.  A good history to read about this is the history of "Pop" Warner, who "invented" a lot of new ways to play football.

Of course Illy is more complicated as there are many, many ways to "win."  Some players think winning is controlling territory, some having a lot of cities, some having cities in every area, some being the biggest trader, player, etc, etc, etc.  My "winning" is to influence how the game is played and to change the gaming culture of Illyriad so that the positive and healthy experience of the new players is extended more to cover the small, independent, and non warring players.  In other words, to influence and expand the "good will" of the players of Illy by getting them to refrain from unnecessary and harmful attitudes and actions.  That is the "game" I'm "playing" and it, obviously, in some minor ways may interfere with other peoples goals.  But that is hardly avoidable since people insist on winning in ways I believe are unethical.

So, given that people have different definitions of what it means to win, and given that we each have a moral obligation to treat others fairly, we must, I think, refrain from doing things that un unnecessarily impinge on the goals of others.  Thus, if you have to parties whose goals are to be the most powerful warring alliance, you may have some unavoidable conflict.  But if you have one party wanting to be the biggest trading alliance, and another who wishes to be the most powerful warrior, there is no reason for the warrior to threaten the trading alliance as they are not in competition...are not playing the same game.

And one of the games some seem to like playing is debate.  Now the 'rules' of debate are not part of the game mechanics, but are governed by the developers to some degree. They do formally set rules and enforce them as to the types of things which can be said, and which cannot.  However, the players of Illy have added some restrictions too.  Thus, "debate" is a negotiated standard, which includes in some people's minds the idea that if you say something I don't like in the forums I can send my armies after you.  The problem with that is that you are forcing the debater to play a different game than he or she might wish to play.  The only proper way to win an debate is to debate.  And if both sides strive to refrain as much as possible from bad debating tactics -- ad hominem remarks come to mind,  and to acknowledge and apologize for them when they make that mistake, the harm is minimum and thus the punishment unneeded. Of course this assumes that the purpose of the punishment is reform.  If it's vengeance or revenge then obviously it's a question of propriety.  But if the offender recognizes his or her mistake and improves, shouldn't that be as much as can be required?  Repentance should be the standard of forgiveness.

More to the point is what unrestrained punishment says both about the debate and the future willingness to engage in debate.  Nobody really thinks that if you destroy a players cities you've changed anybody's mind.  Thus the issue of the debate is still there.  And if the player has changed his or her ways and refrained from further infringements then the "punishment" is accomplishing nothing but making the punisher feel better, (I suppose).  At the same time though, it discourages all but the most careful debaters as nobody wants to have their cities razed because they took the wrong tone in a debate.  The tone of the debate may be bad, but making it a rule that the tone can never be present unless the speaker is willing to lose cities, is worse.  All people have to learn how to debate properly and even those of us who have been doing it a long time can easily miss what is implied in how something is said.  The hardest person to really hear is often yourself.

If though, the goal is to 'clean up' the debate so that the debaters refrain from personal attacks, it would seem to me that there would be currently a lot more attacks being launched.  But if there are attacks being launched only toward one side, when clearly both sides have erred, then the conclusion is that the errors are just an excuse for  trying to shut up those with whom you disagree.  Mistakes in style should not be used as a cover for attacking those with whom you disagree. 

Ultimately, in a closed debate that is not published in such a manner that it can easily be ignored, there is no justification for moving the conflict from the debate to the battlefield.  In resolving any problem the only justifiable course is the one which causes the least amount of harm and accomplishes the desired goals of correcting the problem.  If the problem is one of style the first course of action is a private chat with the offender.  This is generally all it takes as if you bring good evidence of the problem and you are trusted by the person, they will recognize the problem, make amends, and change.  But if not, then you gather more evidence, gather a couple of other people the person trusts, and try again.  The testimony of a couple or more people is generally enough to wake even the most blind person to the errors of their ways, if those making the accusations do so as friends with a civil tongue and good evidence.  If people stand around shouting at the offender it's difficult for that offender to hear what is being said, especially if the shouts just include the conclusion without the evidence.  If we all stand around calling a man a thief but nobody says what he stole and how, it may be difficult for him to see that the thing he picked up by the side of the road was thieving.  And it may be difficult for the shouters to hear his explanation of why he picked up the thing beside the road.  Shouting, especially name calling, may make some people feel better, but it's not good communication.

So, in conclusion, debate is never perfect and debaters are not perfect.  By targeting only one side for correction you give the strong appearance that you aren't punishing the errors of the debaters, but the position of the debater, which only discourages anybody from speaking up.  And even if you desire to correct the behavior of the debater, the best course of action is to use appropriate methods and the least amount of force to do so.  Anything past that is probably not healthy for debate and probably unethical as well.

AJ

ajqtrz wrote: When a player settles in a spot and proceeds to build his or her city, it takes real time for the player to increase the size of the city, and it takes decisions about what to build, what to research, and in what order.  Thus, the player has an investment in time and perhaps in real money spent on prestige.   So a player invests his time and talents in building cities.  The value he or she gets from having accomplished whatever he or she has accomplished is subjective.  Each player values his or her efforts personally.

Should we attempt to create a world in Illyriad where people are insulated from the risk of loss? It seems to me that it would infantilise the players were they to be mollycoddled in such a way. And, in my view, Illyriad provides an arena in which one can experience loss, and because the consequences are so slight - no risk of homelessness or hunger here - one can recover from that loss more easily.

While I am glad that Illyriad is far from being the cut-throat stomp-fest of other similar games, I would not want it to become somewhere entirely free from peril.

[1]Angrim
You make the following three claims:

"1) a political leader need not lead a political party, nor is an alliance a political party. your demand is irrelevant and intended to set up a demonstrably false equivalency (see below).
2) the desire for stability and the prejudice of the status quo. in short, you are fear-mongering.

3) your arguments are emotional appeals cloaked in the form and vocabulary of logic but fraught with dubious equivalencies and false dilemmas."

In the first you claim I "intend" to set up a demonstratively false equivalency" by using the dictionary definition of demagogue and applying the definition in a more strict manner than the definition says.  You are right.  A demagogue does not necessarily have to be the leader of a political party, but he does have to have the backing of people in some manner or he is not a leader, is he?  Since, to my knowledge, I am alone in my alliance it is only I who are in my party...hence I'm not a party at all.  It would be nice if you could point me to the people who are following for it does get a bit lonely in here...LOL.  But your point is correct, I did not use the definition as well as I might and for that I apologize.

Sadly though, you go overboard in claiming I "intend" to set up "a demonstratively false equivalency."  There are two kinds of mistakes a person can make, one is intentional (and thus not really a mistake at all) the other unintentional.  Since you cannot climb into my head and see my intentions, you will have to take my word for it, it was unintentional.

You say that I appeal to "the desire for stability and the prejudice of the status quo."  That is not quite right, but very, very close.  I do not wish to see wars, especially against the small and medium players who are most effected by intimidation by threats of coercion.  I do not wish to have anybody's freedom reduced unnecessarily.  These are not, though  just "popular desires and prejudices" but are, in fact, "rational arguments" based upon common core values of the West.  For them I make no apology.  Which is why I deny the claim that I am a demagogue.  You see, the thing is, not all "popular desire" are irrational.  And while prejudices are wrong, I can think of no prejudice to which I've appealed in my arguments.  But if I had it would have been wrong as it would have assumed my audience is prejudice (in the negative connotation of the term).   On the other hand, an a appeal to freedom is a very popular thing and thus, to that I plead guilty.  I argue that intimidation by threats of coercion are irrational because they are not needed AND they restrict players options...their freedom to settle where they wish.  That is a very rational argument and popular to boot.

In calling me a demagogue you imply my arguments are not rational.  Which ones?  How about turning away from my character or lack thereof and addressing the arguments I put forth?  Remember, broad statements of refutation are not refutation.  I can deny you are a good debater but that would only be the claim.  Where would the proof be?  In the words of the debate of course.

"Your arguments are emotional appeals" is an interesting observation but a false dichotomy.  There are some things you want the listener to feel strongly about and that they should feel strongly about, but that doesn't make the argument against that thing illogical.  I can argue that I want you to help me stop rape in the Sudan and I can make you feel very, very sure that such should be done.  Does that mean that because the appeal was emotional that we shouldn't stop rapes in the Sudan?  Nor does it mean that the arguments I use to make you feel the way you do are illogical.  An argument can be both emotional and logical.

"cloaked in the form and vocabulary of logic"   Of course if you would like to take apart the syllogisms I'd love to see you try.  Nothing like a good syllogism to strip that nasty "emotional appeal" and reveal logic of an argument.  I've challenged you and others to do so, but so far only one person has attempted to refute the major premise. (BTW, here I do use some sarcasm...just so you know it's intentional...LOL)

 Of all you write in your response, the following I find most fascinating.

 You say:

 "i have pointed you to them in the past and your response is nearly always to dodge ("yes, you might have a point there, but let me introduce this other ancillary topic and not really concede anything") or to hide ("that might be a problem, but if i expand the the scope of the argument beyond anything you're likely to have the patience to respond to you'll lose interest without my conceding anything") or to burrow ("maybe i defined that incorrectly, but if i pick apart the sentence into small enough fragments it will cease to have any meaning at all and then your argument will fall apart"). these are good debate tactics if one wants to "win" an argument, but they are the antithesis of logic and thumb their nose at truth."

In this you make three claims about my rhetoric. 

1) That I "introduce this other ancillary topic and not really concede anything"

2) That I "hid" by "expanding the scope of the argument" so you'll "lose interest without may conceding anything"

3)  That I "burrow" by "picking apart the sentence into small enough fragments it will cease to have any meaning at all" and thus, [appear to]"your argument will fall apart."

I find these claims need something like examples from what I've actually said.  It may be true that they are tactics I use, but if so, it's that I'm not aware of them.  On the other hand, they may be  just expressions of your dissatisfaction with my answers.  I don't really know since no examples were given.

"but fraught with dubious equivalencies and false dilemmas."

Again, it's easy to make sweeping generalizations, but the proof is in the text.  If I were accused of making a claim without evidence I'd go get the evidence and lay it out.  Hopefully you are willing to go beyond the generalizations to demonstrate your points.

And your lexicon, sadly, does need some work as well.

When you say:

"ethical behaviour toward other players" = behaviour ajqtrz approves. this includes attacking those with whom he disagrees, but not attacking those with whom he agrees (even though you will ostensibly cause the same emotional pain, indistinguishable from physical violence, in those players), because ethical clearly does not mean consistent."

The claim that the above is my lexicon about ethical behavior might be okay, if you actually could quote some place where I said it.  Unfortunately, making a claim that I said something is not the same as my having actually said it, and it's poor debating form as well.

I've actually used the "do unto others as you would have them to unto you" and "above all avoid unnecessary harm" as my basis of ethical behavior and you can find quotes to that effect. 

And finally, on this point, you might like to find where I said, "those who oppose land claims have the right to use intimidation by threats of coercion" to get their way.  I may be implied in the structure of the society of Illy...meaning that the majority who do not use such tactics are far larger than those who do and thus, may cause those who do use such tactics to consider if their position against the majority may cause them some harm some day, a mild form of "intimidation" to be sure, but nothing overt as far as I can see.

"leaving other to play the game as they wish" = not impeding those players employing a play style of which ajqtrz approves--and this includes the implication that any property currently unclaimed is actually implicitly claimed by them. other players' desires are not to be considered, because they are not in the majority (even if they are, suggested by the poor action rate associated with ajqtrz's diatribes)."

Again, you make a claim without evidence.  A lexicon is not a list of opinions, but an explication of how things are actually used, often with examples.

But you are right in one thing.  I do believe that the majority has the sovereignty.  That is the nature of the sandbox.  You either discuss, argue and debate until one side is seen as having the superior argument, or you stop debating and take up arms, which is very, very sad.  I prefer to keep going as the longer I argue the less strident and better my opponents get at actually answering the logic of my position rather then stooping to ad hominem remarks.

As for the "poor action rate" I'm not certain of the rate of action, but reminding others that they should take action if they think the arguments I make warrants it, is a good thing, especially if you just told them they aren't doing enough, which "poor" might very well imply.  Of course I would remind them that it was you who said it, not me ;>).

"leaving others to play the game as they wish" is not unnecessarily impeding all players from playing a style they wish.  I don't approve of the aggressive game play style, but have said repeatedly, if the warriors want to include that in their style against each other, have at it.  In other words, just because I don't play baseball in the gym doesn't mean there is no place to play baseball.  The fact is, in any society there is no such thing as absolute and unbridled freedom.  The best we can do is restrict ourselves in whatever manner we think appropriate so that others can enjoy the game as well.  The maximum fun for the maximum number of people should not turn into the maximum fun for the few who are willing to use intimidation by threats of coercion.

"refraining from name calling and coercion" = limiting name calling to those not claiming land (because land-claimers are to be characterised as evil and selfish and their ambitions in the game are to be suppressed even at the cost of violating the very ethical points previously made to argue against them)."

If I call you a warrior is that name calling or descriptive?  If you call me a "peacenik" is that name calling or descriptive?  In either case, the name probably reflects the truth of our stances.  If I use a name to describe you that you think does not fit, your job is to show that it does not describe you.  A thief, caught thieving, can be called a thief.  And if the dictionary gives a name to those who involve themselves in intimidation by threats of coercion, you can decide for yourself if the name used is an accurate description or not.  I think the subject of if the description fits the behavior is already settled in favor of the description being accurate. The only real question left is one of significance.  Does it mean anything in this game?

Now let's turn it over and as about real name calling.  Saying somebody is a fool, for instance.  Since a fool is one who does things in such a way that their goals are not reachable by their actions, if a person's goals are not reachable by their actions they are a fool.  However, as long as the jury is still out as to the effectiveness of their efforts, you cannot conclude they are a fool, and that would be name calling.

As for land claimers being evil, you, of course, exaggerate for the sake of emphasis.  That they will "do what it takes" to enact their vision of the game, is merely a quote from their own words. 

I agree with the idea that the rules were adopted through struggle.  But that, sadly, is what often happens when one side decides they have the right to make rules over the other side.  In the end the point of all the argument is to persuade more and more people to be on the right side.  Do that long enough and hard enough and you may find you wake up one day with no more opposition...though that's pretty darn rare.  In any case, the fact that the two player based rules exist and are generally honored is a testament to those who were willing to step up to the plate and make Illyriad a free and friendly place over the objections of some less concerned with the overall success of the game.  We have a strong and encouraging sandbox because some people had the vision and ability to make it so even in the face of those who wanted to "do what it takes" at the expense of the game.

"ignoring your patronizing tone for a moment (indicative of the contempt in which you hold your audience), it is not my obligation to respond to every assertion you make here. when you have exhausted everyone's patience by your refusal to learn, it will not make your arguments either more rational or more true."

Sometimes just reminding others of their failure to engage in good debate can sound patronizing when it comes from a debate coach and debater.  To "patronize" though, is not always a bad thing, but the definition is useful.  It is defined as: "treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority."  Of course, like all definitions that attempt to look below the surface (the surface being "apparent kindness" in this case)  the definition itself is circular.  Why is the "kindness" taken as merely "apparent?"  Could it possibly be that sometimes the "apparent kindness" is exactly what it appears to be, "kindness?"  Of course if you expect patronizing you will often see, "apparent kindness" and chalk it up to a "feeling of superiority."  Thus, because you assume one thing, the actual deed is interpreted one way rather than another.  So most people get what they expect to get even when it may not be there.

To be honest, sometimes I am patronizing.  But not very often.  Most of the time I'm just making a point about something and make it in a hard hitting style.  Since people already believe I am patronizing and condescending they find it difficult to hear my words in any other manner.  That's why it's important to quote and explicate things to demonstrate the claims made.

And if I were really as contemptuous as you claim how would you know?  Contempt is an emotion felt and unless you can climb into my body I don't think you can judge the state of my emotions.  That my words may sound contemptuous is similar to the claim that I'm patronizing....you hear what you expect to hear.  

Speaking of logic, here's some logic you provide.

 1) the dictators usually control the press (emphasis added)

2) I don't control the press

3) (paraphrase) therefore I am not dictator.

 This is good.  My mistake was the word "usually" as you correctly surmised.  There is not correct form of the syllogism unless you use a conditional form.  That would be:

 If all dictators controlled the press then I cannot be a dictator because I do not control the press.

or

Since almost all dictators control the press it is unlikely I am a dictator because I do not control the press.

Thank you for the correction.  (and please don't take this as condescension or patronizing because I am sincere, as I usually am).

1) automobile drivers usually drive on the right (66% or so, based on what i see on the internet).

2) i don't drive on the right.

3) therefore i cannot operate an automobile.

Well, you fell into the same error as I.

The form you would like to take is: 66% of automobile drivers drive on the right, I don't drive on the right so there is a 34% chance that I drive on the left or don't drive at all.

And finally,

1) dictators typically enforce their will via the military and secret police.

2) i have no secret police.

3) therefore land-claiming is clearly wrong.  ;)

Sadly this one makes no sense as a syllogism -- but you knew that, hence the wink.

A "corrected" one:

All dictators enforce their will with secret police

I am a dictator

I enforce my will with secret police

Thus, since I would deny the minor premise, "I am a dictator" the conclusion, while valid, would be untrue.  The "land claiming is clearly wrong" I take as a humorous and faulty conclusion (as the smiley indicates I should take it).

But to make my arguments valid I submit yet another set of syllogisms.

That which is unnecessary can be avoided.

Intimidation by threats of coercion are unnecessary.

Intimidation by threats of coercion can be avoided.

If that which harms more than helps can be avoided, it should be avoided.

Intimidation by threats of coercion harm more than help

Intimidation by threats of coercion should be avoided.

Not avoiding that which should be avoided is wrong

Land claims do not avoid intimidation by threats of coercion

Land claims are wrong

These syllogism are both valid in form and logical.  To dispute the logic is impossible, to dispute the premises is the only way you can logically avoid the conclusion.

Now here is how you might try to dispute the premises.

1) Claim that what is unnecessary cannot be avoided

2) Claim that intimidation by threats of coercion are necessary.

3) Claim that the use of what harms more than helps is acceptable

4) Claim that intimidation by threats of coercion are more helpful than harmful (or equally helpful and harmful)

5) Claim that not avoiding that which should be avoided is acceptable

6) Claim that land claims are not based on intimidation by threats of coercion.

OR

 Develop your own set of syllogisms proving that intimidation by threats of coercion is good for us or necessary or really a nice thing to do to other players...;) (I too can wink..LOL)

 AJ