When Gaming Gets Personal
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=6774
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 05:57
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: When Gaming Gets Personal
Posted By: ajqtrz
Subject: When Gaming Gets Personal
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2016 at 19:31
|
There has been some debate and a recent Supreme Court Case about online gaming and it's effects on people, levels of violence, and personality. The following is a short review, (with bibliography) on the matter. Civil comments and counter points are always appreciated. AJ The focus of most early studies about online gaming was on those deemed "violent," has recently resulted in, what the American Psychiatric Association says is "clear and consistent" evidence that aggression is enhanced by the consistent and long term playing of violent video games, but also that, it is one of many contributing factors. The latest meta-study looked at the last ten years of research and found that, in particular, adolescent boys between 12 and 18 were most likely to show elevated levels of aggressive behaviors after playing violent video games, and that the effects were most pronounced the longer the duration of play (the average length of time spent in a session) and the length of play (the number of weeks, months and years of consistent play). This is of course, in regards to violent video game play like, for instance, Call of Duty. Recently attention has turned to the effects of other types of less violent and non-violent game play with the results being less pronounced the lower the violence in the game, as would, no doubt, be expected. However, many researchers have expanded their conception of what is effected by online game playing and in the last ten years or so have been looking on the effects of online game playing on a persons personality. Using the "Big Five" personality matrix (to test yourself go here: http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/results/?oR=0.925&cR=0.472&eR=0.594&aR=0.611&nR=0.344&y=1950&g=m), they have been measuring changes in personality, self concept, and morality as a result of online game playing and social media. The results are interesting, to say the least. First, it is found that most people, when online, are doing more than just having fun. They are, in most cases, shaping a "cyber-personality" to reflect what, in the offline world, is closer to their "ideal self." In other words, people do carry a sense of self into the game and they do try to enhance themselves so that the "cyber-person" presented is more in line with the desired "ideal self." This, of course, isn't surprising to anyone. But what might be surprising is how some groups formulate that "ideal self." In the development of a healthy self acceptance, most adolescents move to identify themselves with a gender (not a sex) in accordance with their values, needs, vision or biology. The process is very little understood and so political I'll say no more than that. In any case, this movement toward becoming the desired gender, produces in the individual an "ideal self" which may or may not be healthy. In fact, for adolescent boys the classical vision of being a "man" means they often engage in competition and trials as a rite of passage -- the "Rambo effect." This too is commonly known and has been known for a long time. What keeps most young men from becoming "Rambos" is that they soon realize they have not the physical or emotional makeup of that type of man and thus, in a sort move to self-preservation (or perhaps to accept an alternative meaning to what it means to be a "man") they lessen their aggressive behaviors and learn to be more accommodating of others. At least that's what the psychological research of the last fifty years has shown. Another thing it has shown though, is that the degree of success a adolescent has in becoming a "Rambo" the more likely he is to continue to pursue that course and the more aggression is displayed in his interactions. This is in keeping with the research into violent online games, but also, with the effects of enacting immoral choices in situations in less violent games. A study at the University of Indiana took a number of subjects and had them play roles in an online game. Some were "aggressive game players" and some were non-aggressive game players. Their willingness to inflict pain on a person was measured before and after and it was found that they were more willing to inflict a mild shock on another person, and a higher level of voltage, after playing the "aggressive game play" role, and the longer the played the role longer the effect lasted. Thus, as one might expect, when it comes to immoral choices, especially those which harm or cause pain in other players, the more one imagines harming another the easier it gets to actually harm another. This recognition of the power of imagination is nothing new and a method of improving athletic performance. Most coaches, if not all, understand the power of imagination to reshape performance and have their athletes imagine things before enacting them. I recently had a long conversation with a well known professional sports psychologist who holds that the most powerful tool to shaping an athletes performance is the imagination. So, getting back to the "Rambo effect" and the success an otherwise "non-Rambo" type might experience online, it is quite likely that if an adolescent boy considers himself a successful "Rambo" type online, he will continue to do so to some degree other offline. That success in enacting a positive self-image (an self image he perceives as 'positive' anyway) reinforces that self-image and if the success is imaginative, it's still success. Does all this mean that online games are bad? No. In fact, some forms of online gaming are healthy and promote a healthy self-image. Some studies show that those who are introverted, especially in the extreme, can often benefit from the shield of anonymity and develop a socially more effective stance. Other studies show that cooperative combat can enhance self-awareness and, again social effectiveness. This is particularly true of introverted adolescent girls. Thus, online gaming is a mixed bag and, one supposes, those playing games need only be aware of the pitfalls and positive rolesOn the other hand, one does have to ask if the online gaming community should not engage in some form of self policing. For you can be sure that if the current trend of research becomes political, there will be moves to restrict online gaming, and who plays what, when. Better to get ahead of the curve, I think, than be reactionary. For those interested here are a few of the many studies in support of these findings. "Longitudinal Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggrssion
in Japan and the United States" Anderson, Craig A.; Sakamoto,
Akira; Gentile, Douglas A.; Ihori, Nobuko; Shibuya, Akiko; Yukawa, Shintaro;
Naito, Mayumi; Kobayashi, Kumiko. Pediatrics, November 2008, Vol.
122(5), e1067-e1072. Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. (2007). The Proteus Effect: The Effect Of Transformed Self-Representation On Behavior. Human Communication Research, 33(3), 271-290. "The Effects of Pathological Gaming on Aggressive Behavior" Jeroen S. Lemmens, Patti M. Valkenburg and Jochen Peter "Correlates and Consequences of Exposure to Video Game Violence: Hostile Personality, Empathy, and Aggressive Behavior" Bruce D. Bartholow, University of Missouri-Columbia, Marc A. Sestir, Edward B. Davis, University of North Carolina -- Chapel Hill "Online Game Player Personality and Real-life Need Fulfillment" Ching-I Teng, Chang Gung University, Taiwan "The Effect of Online Violent Video Games on Levels of Aggression" Jack Hollingsdale, Tobias Greitemeyer PLOS "Video Games Do Affect Social Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of Violent and Prosocial Video Game Play" Tobias Greitemeyer, Dirk O. Mugge, University of Innsbruk, Austria "Effects of In-Game Storytelling on Immersion, Needs Satisfaction, and Affective Theory of Mind" Daniel Bormann, Intsutite of Psychology, Albert Ludwigs University of Frieburg, Freiburg, Bresgau, Germany, and Tobias Greitemeyer, Institute of Psychology, University of Innsbruk, Innsbruk, Austria. "Violent Video Games Effect on Aggression, Empathy, and Prosocial Behavior in Eastern and Western Countries: A Meta Analytic Review" Craig A. Anderson, Iowa State Unversity, et. al.Text at: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-2-151.pdf |
Replies:
Posted By: asr
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2016 at 20:14
|
yes. |
Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2016 at 20:42
| Please cite the court case |
Posted By: Alfred
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2016 at 21:27
|
Well, the corporate and contractual nature of the internet
does make it “personal” *giggles* The internet is venting ground for people’s narcissism and/or
traits that couldn’t surface offline due to greater forces and characters. ABit
like teenage girls moment mother isn’t looking. ( or just look at how people drive, only bit of power most
people acquire and look how they use it ) The dull almost pre-regimented life’s many people lead,
coupled with a complete detachment from all family, cultural and historical precedence
leaves no reason to behave in a “normal” way. (other than selfish gain anyway or simply attention seeking to fill a void ) Games and Social media are a watery reflection when "role play" isn't happening. The internet has merely enabled a focal point
for what would have been isolated fantasies to proliferate. More interestingly in the past, media and social events were less varied and more conformal, now people have a chance to put their own twist upon it! They may even act as a the media or narrative like never before. ( Couldn't even speak out of turn up the dinner table 100 years ago, games had strict rules, entire crowds would react with disgust if a music concert was too "contemporary" ) An often overlooked effect of internet is you can pick what ever mantra or vibe you want at an instance online. See what you want to see, read what you want. Don't like the smallest thing? Search for another more pleasing blog or version of game! Vanity of vanity saith the preacher all is vanity ;p (being given, acting or told what you want when you want it would of been considered "spoiling" once upon atime ) ( Watching the early acress of steam if quiet telling, people pay for legups on sandbox games so they can tell, take and stomp over new players upon launch, as this advantage fades and the game is balanced, They leave...... as they can't act out a weird violent ego-fueled fantasies. ) ------------- Warning: may contain traces of sanity ( Current username Lord DeFault Ni old; King Alfred wCrow) |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2016 at 21:40
|
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 08-1448 (2011) The ruling struck down a California law that aimed to restrict the sale of some games to minors without parent permission. The court decided that first amendment rights, at this time, trump the (then) limited evidence that violent video games harm children. However, they also said that the issue would need to be reviewed in the future as more research is done and if it's shown that playing violent video games does harm to children. Personally I agreed with the court as at the time the evidence was very unclear. Since that time, not so unclear and becoming clearer every day. Thanks for asking, and sorry I didn't include it in the bibilography. |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 21 Jan 2016 at 21:52
I agree that people have always had fantasies and that some of them were anti-social, violent, and weird. Most, I suspect though I have nothing but my own intuitive guess about the matter, were none of those things. There are at least two difference between then and now though, that raise interesting questions. First, it would seem to me that if you acted out a fantasy then, somebody would know the real you who is enacting that fantasy. Thus the shield of anonymity would be mostly missing. Related or a correlation to this is that not only is there a shield of anonymity between you and your online fantasy, but also between you and the "victims" or "beneficiaries" of your online fantasy. And while it s true that people are physically much safer in cyberspace, the emotional harm may not be so protected. Second, and you allude to this also, the ability for many people with the same type of fantasy to band together is much greater as the Internet means that you can choose to NOT interact with people with whom you disagree because you don't like their color, their gender identification, their sex, their preference in booze or whatever. Where before the cyber world you would probably need to learn pretty quickly to adjust your behaviors to a more cosmopolitan outlook, in cyberspace you can have your own "all just like me" society and never be bothered with examining your judgements about "all those people who are not like me." Related to this is, of course, the ability to anonymously scour the world for people with whom you share your particular cup of tea. This is, in one way good, if that cup of tea is not poisonous to the online community of which your sub group may be a part, but multiplies the "evil" done by drawing into your immediate cyberspace others of like 'unhealthy' habits. So like most thing the technology is a double edged sword and cuts both to the positive and the negative. AJ |
Alfred wrote:Posted By: Adrian Shephard
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2016 at 04:00
| Sighs.....More BS form Ajqtrz, just stop Ajqtrz PvP and land claiming won"t stop bacsre you posted a load of BS and I have looked at your links,they are heavily flawed and worthless, so please stop posting whatever it is you post and .....well lets call it want it is- BS |
Posted By: phoenixfire
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2016 at 04:27
| Um Adrian, the court case is real and this had nothing to do with land claims. Why don't you actually read the post before spouting your own BS. |
Posted By: Adrian Shephard
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2016 at 04:53
| I was not posting about land claiming and I do know about the case, But playing video games and using social media won"t turn you in a killer and even if you were to play vionrt video games you won"t turn into a killer, Ajqtrz post is saying "if you play or view voint media,you will be a killer" and that is not true |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2016 at 05:22
|
I think what aj was saying was more along the lines of "if you travel by car, you are more likely to be involved in a car accident." That doesn't mean that cars are "bad" or that there's anything inherently wrong with cars. There are reasons to travel in them and reasons not to. There are reasons to play video games (primarily enjoyment but also social connection and perhaps in some cases building certain skills) and reasons not to (because they may affect other behaviors, as well as potentially taking time away from other activities, etc.) Pretty much everything we do has risks and rewards. Being aware of those risks and rewards helps us make conscious choices.
|
Posted By: phoenixfire
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2016 at 05:41
|
Nowhere in his post does he say that Adrian. He is addressing a study done that shows a correlation between playing violent video games and being violent. Just because there is a correlation does not mean one causes the other or vice versa it just means as one rises(amount of violent video games played and violentness of child) the other tends to aswell. A great example of this is that ice cream sales and number of homicides tend to rise together, however they don't cause eachother its just that they both tend to rise in the summer. The main reason that the correlation exists is that if you are violent in the first place you are more likely to play a game that allows you to be violent without consequences. While if you aren't violent you are more likely to play a game that reflects your non-violentness.
|
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2016 at 12:23
|
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.12129/full" rel="nofollow - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.12129/full
------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/26125" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2016 at 12:35
|
The International Red Cross has been one of the biggest advocates for shedding light on the consequences of war games and their possible influence on the rise in violence globally. They are particularly concerned about first-person shooters, and they argue that: " . . .as in real life, these games should include virtual consequences for people's actions and decisions. Gamers should be rewarded for respecting the law of armed conflict and there should be virtual penalties for serious violations of the law of armed conflict, in other words war crimes." However, they also differentiate these games from "more fantasy oriented war games," stating:
I think the IRC's perspective is germane to this discussion. The entire text can be reviewed here: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/film/2013/09-28-ihl-video-games.htm" rel="nofollow - https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/film/2013/09-28-ihl-video-games.htm ------------- https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Adrian Shephard
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2016 at 20:45
| You know.....View points like the IRC"s and the UN"s have been disproved many times and playing FPS won"t turn you into a Monster....you have just show me the most BS i have seen on a Website(i fellowed the link),Thank you for making me laugh today! :) |
Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2016 at 22:03
I agree. I only posted it to highlight how even the IRC doesn't see fantasy games like Illyriad as "violent games." My point is that Illyriad is not a violent game, nor does it promote realistic violence -- especially compared to first-person shooters. ------------- https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: Tink XX
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2016 at 22:32
|
Yeah, such violent game... The cities don't even emit a single plume of smoke when you siege them. The only indication that a battle took place is an icon for crafted gear appearing on the map. Siege camps look like a family picnic tent with a catapult in tow for some (I'm sure completely practical) reason. And don't even get me started on elf pirates! |
Posted By: Belegar Ironhammer
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2016 at 23:58
Ah, good to see you follow your own rules again, professor. Nice of you to demand respect from everyone else, but not hold yourself to the same lofty standard.
Better get rid of those land claims before the U.S. Congress bans Illy for being too violent. No one seriously contests that violent video games play a role in violence in our society. However, from what I could gather on all your sources, they were largely devoted to first person shooters or violent media, including movies. To even define Illy as a violent game stretches credulity. *Edited for spelling |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2016 at 00:07
|
Tink XX. I laughed. "even emit a single plume of smoke". Maybe we can get the devs to provide the smoke for us? Overall, as many of you have noticed, the emphasis in studies has been on aggression and violence and the question of if violent video games leads to or even causes acts of aggression and violence in the offline world. I tend to think that if there is any causal mechanism it is subtle and weak at best. Violent video games will, I think eventually be shown to contribute in some minor way to aggressive behaviors, but will be one of a whole grand mix of influences, among which might be things like personality, family problems, abject poverty, etc.... But what is, I think, a more subtle and interesting question with broader implications, is how online gaming affects personality, an area of study relatively new. The studies that I have read indicate that when you measure the Big 5 personality traits before and after long sessions of role playing games players personalities are altered.....meaning that they perceive themselves differently. The effect is most noticeable among adolescents who have been playing role playing games for around eighteen months. Older adults show the same movements, but only after several years. Here's my take on WHY this might be so. When a child is nine or ten years old he or she has the strongest sense of right and wrong they will ever have in their lives. At that point they internalized many of the values of their culture and function on a more clearly defined moral compass than they will ever have. But of course, the compass is not yet their own and they measure right and wrong not by intention, but more by consequences. For instance, if you tell a child that a kid accidentally broke five china plates while doing the dishes and another kid purposely broke three, the child will generally feel that the first kid acted worse than the second because he caused more damage. Most people who are older than ten will say the opposite as most people give more weight to intentions as when they measure right and wrong. And as the child enters puberty he or she begins to connect intentions to acts and to add more weight to them, meaning, of course, that the measurement of right or wrong becomes more fuzzy. In addition the child begins to pull away from his or her family and to form a vision of what king of person he or she wants to be. This "ideal self" reflects the cultural values and experiences around the child and thus, the child, in searching for his or her self identity strives to reach the "ideal self" received from the culture around them. Now it that is true and the child enters into a competitive atmosphere where being a conqueror is ideal, then he or she will generally attempt to be the conqueror. I'm going to stick my neck out here and suggest that if you measured the actual age of the most aggressive players, verses the most peaceful, you'd find the average age of aggressive players was younger than the more peaceful ones. This is, I think, not because it's bad to be an aggressive player, but because the measure of winning in most games promotes an aggressive style and the younger you are the more likely it is you will both be aggressive AND have the time to become "successful" by the gaming communities standards. In addition, whereas older players are more experienced with how their actions effect others and often exhibit more self-control, self-awareness, and satisfaction with who they are, and have less a need to "win" at the competition, a person developing his or her self-identity with a vision of the ideal self as a "winner" will put more time and effort into it, AND, probably be a bit less concerned about his or her impact on other players. Now my theory is that, this "ideal self" is most reinforced by the length of time spend in gaming, the intensity of the experience, and the 'success' the player has in the game. The more success the person has the more likely will be to carry that image of themselves into the offline world and to engage in activities and attitudes which reinforce their ideal self. All of which is, I think, suggested by current studies. (As an interesting aside remember when you first read JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy? Didn't you feel you wanted to be more noble after reading it? Did you not, as I did, think of how wonderful it would be to carry a sword, slay Orcs [sorry Orcs of Illy], and be Gandalf or Bilbo Baggins? The imagination is a powerful thing, and works in literature as well as online gaming.) Finally, notice that this does not mean the person will be more violent. Whatever the highest self displayed by the online community the young player will naturally try to implement. If the highest self the community puts forth is a good self for society then gaming will have a net positive effect. If it's a negative "highest self" then the offline world will suffer. At least that's my theory for now. Anjre. Thanks for the link. The general decline in violence since the 1970's anyway, has been noticed by a quite a number of people. It is, therefore difficult to say that just because violent crime declined even as violent video games proliferated, that the proliferation of violent games contributed to the decline, slowed the decline, or had no effect at all. A negative correlation is no more proof of something than a positive, but only suggestive. But I do VERY much like that you are doing some investigations as it truly stimulates the conversation I think. Rill, as usual you hit the nail on the head. It's all about being aware and taking action when and if things are going in the 'wrong' direction BEFORE somebody else begins to tell us how much, when, where and what we can play. Player responsibility is the only way to be free. And that means being aware of things. Phoenixfire, You said: "The main reason that the correlation exists is that if you are violent in the first place you are more likely to play a game that allows you to be violent without consequences. While if you aren't violent you are more likely to play a game that reflects your non-violentness." I think you are right to a great degree, hence the effect of violent games may be small, if at all. However, the bigger picture might be that the 'violent or non-violentness" is probably a sliding scale rather than a switch. If so then most people are probably in the middle somewhere (if the 'bell curve' is applicable anyway) and thus, the influence of 'practicing violence' may effect those closest to the middle of any aggression scale. My argument would be though, that all violence has consequences, even to the one practicing it in an imaginary forum. But that's a statement about the power of imagination more than the effects of online gaming. AJ |
Posted By: Adrian Shephard
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2016 at 04:30
| AJ just....stop it |
Posted By: Hyrdmoth
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2016 at 09:24
|
The question that interests me is: What behaviours does Illyriad encourage compared to other similar games (whose names sound a bit like Peony)? Aggression in Illyriad is much more expensive, and the rewards for that aggression much lower, than in comparable games. Co-operation with other players is much more necessary. Planning, rather than purely weight of numbers, is called for. Patience and self-motivation are encouraged, as there is no victory condition. This naturally leads to the question of: Why is ajqtrz dissatisfied? Illyriad appears to me to be all the things that he would want a game to be, particularly in comparison to any other game.
|
Posted By: Lotharblack
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2016 at 10:22
|
Let posts like this be a warning to Devs that they need to provide us with new content to keep us happy and occupied or there be crazy talks in the forums .... ------------- Lord Loth |
Posted By: Adrian Shephard
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2016 at 15:35
| If there is no new Content then you get forums that are filled with BS and crazy posters posting.....things |
Posted By: Mr. Ubiquitous Feral
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2016 at 18:14
|
so i should recall my siege on the neighbor's house? they made me mad when they said my RL reflects my game-playing. ------------- I am a Machine. |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2016 at 20:50
| I played Illy yesterday, and today I made a hill tribe spear out of my neighbor's chihuahua! |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2016 at 01:34
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2016 at 02:58
|
So like ... speed limits?
I would think a dwarf would be in favor. Personally I resent the elves and their zippy horses.
|
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2016 at 03:12
/me cues "the ride of the valkyries"... |
Posted By: Adrian Shephard
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2016 at 05:02
Sighs....as long as AJ keeps his BS to Himself....that world be a vary good thing 
|
Posted By: Ptolemy
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2016 at 15:32
|
I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this thread, but seems that didn't work. I have one thing to say, yes ajq messed up, but, he has tried to fix it. The reason I am defending him is not because I agree with what he's saying, I don't. But, no need for people to constantly call him out on it. Unless he has said something to offend you, personally, in which case, deal with it on PC. Hopefully he doesn't do this in the future, but if he does, IGNORE it. No one is forcing you to read the forums, no one. If it was one or two people, I would have kept quite, but I can't stand it when one person is being mocked, if that's the right word, by the majority. |
Posted By: IbnSenna
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2016 at 16:23
|
I'll support Angrim's view about winged thingies! Illy's world definitely wanting birdies, winged horsies, flying dragons (able to use their speed!) and other rokh birds! |
Posted By: Thexion
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2016 at 17:07
|
In my opinion personification of your adversaries or your character in game is not a good thing. In my opinion it is the personification that leads into problems that AJ links in studies, players should not actually live the game but just play it. Therefore solution is not about making games healthy environment for living since game should not be your life in the first place. I have not read those studies (and I dont have time) but I'm pretty sure the results are not from casual players that have good life in general. |
Posted By: Adrian Shephard
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2016 at 18:25
|
No matter how hardcore of a gamer you are,you won"t go crazy bacsre of a D--m Video game,oh sure a small group might did it,but that is not what the Sudry is saying...its saying all Video games will do this and they just hide it
|
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2016 at 20:35
|
Belegar
"Ah, good to see you follow your own rules again, professor. Nice of you to demand respect from everyone else, but not hold yourself to the same lofty standard. " I might suggest that if you wish to speak of how people in Illyriad treat each other and cases of mistakes being made, this is not the place to do it. Do try to stay at least on topic. And thanks for calling the standard lofty, I do believe it is and while I do fail to live up to it, as I assume you do as well, fortunately growth comes from admitting your errors and learning from them, don't you think? AJ |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2016 at 20:46
|
Thexion, it is impossible, or nearly so, to NOT be affected by what happens in a game. One of the reasons games are fun is that our bodies respond to the emotion of the game in much the say way that they respond to emotion outside the game. Therefore, if a person experiences the conquering of fear and the exhilaration or victory in a game whatever behaviors or attitudes he or she engaged in are reinforced outside the game. This is what the studies tend to show...that while there is strict and mediating presence of the intellect to allow people to realize the game is imaginary, the emotional aspect of the game is not easily filtered and the tendency is to enact the successful role you play in a game outside the game. When you say, therefor, that players "should not actually live the game but just play it," you are suggesting that players not engage in the emotional aspects of the game...which is why most people play games. Enjoyment is an emotion that comes from things like winning, conquering, being the biggest trader, having a nice set of cities...ect. So it is impossible and undesirable to make people "not actually live" the game. What others forget and which I keep trying to remind them is that when you, the person playing the game, are in the game you are still alive and you are, to a degree, living the game. I do think your comment that the casual player may be effected less, but then again, most games cannot be won by playing them casually. Studies that I have read do support your view about the effects being more measurable in long term players and players who engage in long sessions. You might like to at least skim the abstracts since the conclusions of the studies are usually contained in them and they are only a paragraph or two. Good comments. AJ |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2016 at 21:09
What the studies have shown is that people react to games emotionally in much the same way the do to real life events, though at a lower level of of course. The same brain chemicals are triggered in an imaginary attack as in a real one, except the conscious mind is able to put the imaginary attack into a safe context and thus to reduce the fight/flight response....though not eliminate it. From my perspective it's not about the levels of aggression and how gaming might change them, but in how gaming might effect the overall personality of the individual. Increased aggression is not the only thing which can be effected, perhaps cooperation (this has been measured as something which can happen in female subjects and highly introverted individuals), altruism, empathy and it's opposite. You are correct that planning the the weight of numbers is important in Illy, but only when the two sides are roughly equivalent in size and experience. Once the experience level and size are taken into account it may be that the cost of aggression is much less, especially if the aggression is against an unarmed player or even a lightly armed player. But of course, the real aggression in Illy isn't in the wars between warrior alliances because they are often pretty well matched and expect to endure aggression. But what of the independent players, or the small peaceful alliances attacked without cause. I do believe that the attacker is doing harm to themselves, though probably pretty minor, and that, once they develop the habit of attacking small players and "winning" they reinforce that attitude that says "I don't care about you I"m here to have what's fun to me and you can just suffer." That's not respectful and, if as I believe, is carried out into the offline world, decreases the respect the player will show to others who are, in fact, physically weaker. Other forms of aggression are also present in how some players are treated verbally in GC or the forums. Aggression need not be with armies, but sometimes is present when somebody says "shut up," or "nobody wants to listen to you" and things like those. The highest form of punishment a group of people can meet out in a social group is ostracization. It is one of the three forms of punishment, something of which I may include in another post some day. Your comments are very much appreciated. AJ |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2016 at 21:29
|
In reading through your linked research, I could not find what their definition of what they consider a "violent video game." Can you point this definition out or at the least define it in your own words so that there is a basis of discussion to work upon. Further, How do you see Illyriad fitting within this definition? ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/26125" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2016 at 22:08
|
The example most quoted is Call of Duty in it's various iterations. I'll try to find out if there is a common definition. Thanks for pointing out the need to determine that. AJ |
Posted By: asr
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2016 at 23:05
|
1a. logic and emotions are everyone's own personal settings they affect the moves you are making. 1b. Those who don't think that game affect your actions just doesn't believe in the ability to change your fate. 2a. Game changes your life: you won't need to look happiness or whatever you need from somewhere else what otherwise you would have. 2b. If you want to become a "top 1 fighter" but you fail then that desire remains to be filled some other way. You might go outside to the local bar and pick a fight there etc. |
Posted By: asr
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2016 at 23:17
|
Game is no different from real life. Its you what makes the difference and its your own personal decision. I can throw rocks at people in real life and think its a game for me.
|
Posted By: Adrian Shephard
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2016 at 00:14
| The reason why the research don"t have a definition is...video games don"t turn you into a sexism and they sure as h--l don"t turn you into a killer |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2016 at 04:54
Pigs?
|
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2016 at 21:43
|
Pigs? How about flying pigs to tangle with the flying dragons....or to escort them...lol. AJ |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2016 at 21:59
|
Flying sharks with Laser beams - Stormcrow promised them 5 years ago - still waiting for delivery... ------------- "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM "a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
Posted By: asr
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2016 at 12:20
|
i'm out of business here in forums. Not that i don't have sell something or lack of buyers .. Can't it be allowed to be a philosophical player. i'm out, good luck Aj
|
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 28 Jan 2016 at 11:37
I am going to repost the above questions since it seems you have moved on or are unwilling to answer them. I will add, In your OP you jump from a generalized "most persons" to adolescent development with regard to online gaming. What development stage do you feel "most persons" in the Illyriad community are in? Further, how familiar are you with Illyriad history? You seem to be asking for more self policing, correct? Self policing efforts can be found throughout Illyriad's rich history of community. Which of these efforts are you advocating? which of these efforts are you warning against? Are we to consider "most persons" adolescents when developing self policing rules? Finally, You are aware there is a very good example of an "adolescents" growth via interaction with Illyriad and its community. You might want to look into it because it counters all your linked research into what/how violent video games are supposed to influence things. I would postulate that this is because Illyriad doesn't fall into any of the definitions of researched violent games. ~Anjire ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/26125" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 28 Jan 2016 at 21:14
It's interesting that your response to people who "actually live the game" includes the judgment that they should "just play it." You do see, don't you, that you are judging those who "live the game" and imply that their doing so is what they should not be doing? It is, I think, nearly impossible to comment upon the actions and attitudes of others without making such judgments. But given that some people do spend a lot of time in Illy, shouldn't we try to make it as healthy as we can? I choose to live on a houseboat that doesn't mean I should just accept a dirty river or move to dry land. As for the results of the various studies, you are correct that the more time you spend and the longer you play, the greater the impact. But that's not surprising since that's true of just about any activity in which we engage. I guess one question is to what degree should we make Illyriad safe even for those who do spend a lot of time here? But you also imply that he effects of gaming are due to prolonged exposure. In fact some studies suggest that the more intense the experience the shorter the time needed to effect offline behaviors. The effect of an intensely violent video game may last for hours even with a casual or new player. But there are still a lot of questions being asked and we are, in fact, still figuring out the right questions to ask and how to ask them. AJ |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 28 Jan 2016 at 21:40
I apologize if I didn't answer the question before. Here is my answer: almost universally the mention Call of Duty. They occasionally mention (when discussing moral choices) Grand Theft Auto. Other than that I'm still searching for the standards. But my point is not the violent video games so much as the effects of gaming, in general, on offline decisions. The evidence is that online games do effect offline performances, but in both a positive and negative manner. So it's probably not the game, but how the game is played that counts, and for how long.
" Of course, if you mean by "self policing" that we, the players do that, it may mean that there may be rare instances where it is needed. But if we have consensus that certain actions are not allowed it is almost always enough to keep new players, (and old I suppose) from engaging in those behaviors if only because most people value their reputation and when you go against what the group wants you always pay price....I think I know a bit about that...LOL. As for who polices, when, and who gets policed, that is an ongoing discussion. But certainly the age of the player is to be considered. More importantly though is that in each situation I think the least amount of "persuasion" necessary to persuade should be used. This includes a vet just talking to the player evidence in hand, his alliance working with him, and some time for him or her to be trained about what is and is not allowed, especially if he or she gives evidence that he or she is willing to change. Razing cities should be the very last and final stage of a reasonably long process. As two who does such a thing, it would probably be those most affected by the problem. But that's way ahead of ourselves as we do not yet have a consensus. And you are right, Illyriad does not fall into the same category of violence as CoD or GTA. But there is violence in it, and there are unethical actions taken. The question is not of violence, but of unjustified and unnecessary violence. And of intimidation by threats of coercion, which is a (implied) form of violence. More to the point is, the studies quoted are not all on violent games and their effects. Some of them cover games which are not violent and do, in fact, demonstrate some positive influences on adolescents. The point is that online gaming effects our offline selves in some way and to some degree, and therefore, we ought to be conscious of the fact that gaming IS personal. Finally, I would like to see the evidence that online interaction with Illyriad has a positive influence on adolescent development as it would be fascinating and help me figure out better how encourage such a positive outcome. AJ |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 28 Jan 2016 at 21:44
|
Anjire, Sorry I missed one question. At what stage of moral development are most players in Illy? I'm actually preparing a post on moral development stages and will be letting posters answer that via discussion in that post. Good timing for the question though. AJ |
Posted By: scottfitz
Date Posted: 28 Jan 2016 at 23:35
| I'll take a regiment of pigs on the wing |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 29 Jan 2016 at 01:15
|
...am I the only one who has taken to literally scrolling past ajqtrz's posts and reading the posts of those willing to read his yards of text for the summation? I have to admit, I've managed to find some bit of entertainment in these threads reading them in that way. ------------- |
Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 30 Jan 2016 at 20:31
What unethical actions have been taken? And why do you think they are unethical? |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 30 Jan 2016 at 22:27
Is it ethical for one person to intimidate another through threats of coercion? Is it ethical to attack another player who has done nothing but settle where he or she wishes within the bounds of what the players have, by general consensus, agreed are the rules of settlement? Is it ethical to use force to restrict the right of settlement by threats? But to be precise, I view it as unethical to punish people words issued, retracted, apologized for, and not repeated. I view it unethical to use ad hominem remarks when debating. I view it unethical to use intimidation by threats of coercion to reach your goals when they are not necessary and impinge on the fun other players are or might be wanting to have. I view it unethical to take more than you need or refuse to share what you have with those who have needs. I view a lot of things as unethical, and all of them I bring into every game I play. Which is, I suppose the heart of what it means to be an ethical game player. In the end I view it unethical to treat people in any venue with less regard than you would if you were face to face. If you would not do it face to face, do not do it here. But when you ask, "why" are they unethical, you run into a real problem. Ethics vary from person to person and unfortunately, there are no absolute standards. Thus, one is left to an appeal to the consensus of the group. In other words, the "common sense" of right and wrong of any society boils down to the preferences of majority with some allowance in most societies for differing views. The common thread of the things listed above is the general standard of conduct used offline. Offline it is not justified to keep attacking a person unnecessarily, it is not justified to threaten people with harm if they don't do as you say, and if you decide to impose something on everyone without their consent, or to change the way things are done to benefit yourself at the expense of others. Yes, these things are done, but they are usually done in secret and with an understanding that it would be embarrassing and perhaps criminal if it were known that they were being done. Most religions have the "do unto others as they would do to you" as one of the bases of ethical behavior. And most people in Illyriad do not like it when they are subjected to intimidation by threats of coercion. Let us suppose for a bit that a single player tried to claim an area and then attacked any new player entering that area. The only players he could intimidate by threats of coercion would be those smaller than himself. Thus, intimidation by threats of coercion really effects the small and middle sized players, especially if it's done by large and well organized alliances. But I'm willing to bet that every single land claimer out there, if they were a small player without their alliances, would not like it if they, wanting to settle in a particular area, were told that if they do so they would be removed. Even land claimers would not like to be bullied. Thus, it's unethical because it is now what they would want done to them should the roles be reversed. I'm not saying they would say anything about it or complain, but it would be a bit hard to believe that if they had three cities, settled in the "wrong" area and refused to give in, that when the land claiming alliance razed their cities, they'd say to themselves "oh goodie, goodie, this is soooo much fun!" Hope this helps. AJ |
Posted By: Tink XX
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2016 at 00:49
|
Why playing chess is unethical 1. You threaten and intimidate your opponent by placing your chess pieces on the board in such a way that makes them scared to move their pieces to where they might be captured. By doing this you coerce your opponent into making different kinds of moves, thus impinging on the free play of an innocent player who has done absolutely nothing to you. 2. Chess players habitually take more of their opponent's pieces than they really need, and they refuse to share their own pieces with their opponent. 3. Your opponent has invested a lot of mental energy into every move, and by beating him you are destroying his carefully crafted pattern of pieces on the board. 4. All too often, when your opponent made a mistake and you have captured his piece, you say to yourself "this is sooo much fun!" 5. Some chess players get really upset when they lose. By playing with them you are causing them emotional distress. Stop now! Why playing Settlers of Catan is unethical 1. You place your cities strategically to hog as many different resources on the map as possible. Your goal is not to share these resources with your fellow players, oh no! The goal is to maximize your resources in order to beat them in the race for points. 2. You constantly undercut your opponents by placing roads and settlements on the choicest map tiles thus bullying your fellow players into NOT placing their cities in these spots, thus impinging on their freedom of movement and free play. 3. You are a cutthroat trader and will not trade for that resource card your opponent badly needs unless he trades you 3 resource cards back. 4. Every time you roll a 7 and get to move the robber to take a resource card from your opponent, you think "gee, this is sooo much fun!". 5. Some Settlers of Catan players get really upset when they lose. By playing with them you are causing them emotional distress. Stop now! Why playing hide and seek is unethical 1. You are coercing other players into hiding and staying very still by threatening to find them, thus severely impinging on their freedom of movement. 2. Players in hiding do not like sharing their hiding places with each other because that increases the probability of them to be found. 3. Everytime you find a person you think, "gee, this is so much fun"! 4. Some people are really good at hiding. It takes forever to find these jerks! 5. The game involves an unhealthy element of fear and may cause some players emotional distress. Why playing snowballs is unethical Because you can hit someone in the face.  Why playing poker is unethical Does this even need explaining? |
Posted By: Hyrdmoth
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2016 at 10:35
|
I agree with Tink. If you play a game you need to learn that you may lose the game, and it is best to face that possibility with grace and good humour. This took me many years to learn. For a long time I was a terrible loser. I hope I can say that I have improved.
|
Posted By: asr
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2016 at 11:42
|
You can laugh over a situation where an unethical man comes to a ethical place. Unethical man doesn't understand whats going on and gets upset why people are so cruel. People can laugh because there is something only they can understand and others are ignorants. You have military power, only you can have fun.
|
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 01 Feb 2016 at 00:07
|
Tink XX. Apparently it does need explaining. So, once again I'll explain. It's not a single game, it's a sandbox. I'm trying to play, in Illyriad's sandbox, one, called "AJ's Way" and the rules of it are that you can't intimidate with threats of coercion because to win you must be the least aggressive person and still manage to build an empire. Would you, or anybody like to play? Of course, we may have a problem with those who do not wish us to play our way as they think they get to make up the rules for us. Funny how that works, isn't it. You want to play game a certain way and you and your friends start playing when a group of others come over and insist you play their way or they'll force you to do so. My point is that all your examples have rules of the game and if you choose to play THAT game nobody is forcing you to do so. Thus, you should understand that you might experience, pain, suffering, disappointment, or whatever negative thing you like to mention. But, if you do not wish to play one of those games, then what right does anybody have to force you to do that. Imagine you enter onto a football field where and half the players want to play tackle and the other half, touch. The touch players don't wish to play tackle, so they can't insist on the tackle players playing touch... nor can the tackle players insist on the touch players playing tackle because that what they want. Hmmmm....the solution? How about they SHARE the field and each party plays the way they want? You keep thinking it's a single game and it isn't. So your examples, while humorous, are not good illustrations of Illyriad. AJ |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 01 Feb 2016 at 00:18
|
Hydrmoth, 1) It isn't a single game, it's a sandbox where players decide what it means to win and lose for themselves. Thus, for some the only way to lose is to have somebody impose loosing on them. Others wish to be more competitive and set other boundaries as to what it means to win or lose. 2) And as for grace and good humor, I doubt anybody would have a lot of grace and good humor if somebody decided force them to change the rules of their game and by doing so also force them to lose in the game they are playing. If I'm on the football field playing touch football and some player decides it's time to play tackle and tackles me, I doubt he'd be appreciated. But he'd be appreciated less if he insisted football could only be played tackle and anybody playing football would be required to play it tackle. AJ |
Posted By: Gul'Dan
Date Posted: 01 Feb 2016 at 00:26
|
The bad blood is only created so that they can manipulate others in favor of themselves. It also prevents others from getting involved so that one side gains more favor and the others are hesitant to defend and be part of it and sway them. A war tactic. Accept it. I personally don't believe in it. ------------- 
|
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 01 Feb 2016 at 01:30
|
Gul'Dan, I think you are right. It is a tactic used by some to claim a right and then dare anybody to take back what they have lost. Sadly sometimes it's the one most willing to loose who wins rather than the one who is right. As for accepting it, isn't that the point of the fight? They wish to force you and I and everybody who is either opposed or at least uncomfortable with it, to "just accept it." But to be honest, I want them to just accept the logic that Declaration of Homeland would give them pretty much everything they want without all the tension. So both sides want the other to accept something. But given I've suggested a way to get 95% of what they claim they want, and have asked only that they drop the universal intimidation by threats of coercion to which they subject all of Illy, and they've refused even that compromise, I'm not certain they aren't out to just provoke a war or two. And people think I'm the one upsetting the apple cart...LOL. AJ |
Posted By: Thexion
Date Posted: 01 Feb 2016 at 14:15
|
I disagree it is a single game. You can decide what you want in all
games only difference is that there is no set victory condition. Even in
ice hockey you could try to play tide so no one would hurt their
feelings or tackle as many as you can. All Illyriad game aspect affect each other city building, trade, diplomacy and military. To decide what you want in the game you need might, effort and influence to achieve it. So you could see the game might collecting game so you can shape the sand box as you like. Best way to get influence is to make others do what you want or agree with you. So therefore even ranting in the forums about ethic can be seen part of the game. |
Posted By: Ptolemy
Date Posted: 01 Feb 2016 at 17:01
| Illy is a diplomacy game, War is a part of diplomacy. As long as there is a difference in ideas, conflict is inevitable, be it verbal, or physical. Does this mean a difference of ideas is bad? No. If everyone beloved the same thing, it'd be dull, real dull. So I don't care you believe land claiming is bad, you have to right to your opinions, just as other people have a right to theirs. So if you want to end land claiming, You'll have to be able to force them into that. Is that not what you are against? Using force and coercion to get your way. But you are not doing that, you are using words, atm. However, are you not trying to force your view onto others? Make them play how you want? |
Posted By: jtk310
Date Posted: 01 Feb 2016 at 19:36
|
I'd like to take it from another angle, Ptolemy. I couldn't decide the best of these threads to post this in, so hopefully it will get views here of those who are interested in the subject. I would like to approach this from the angle of what AJ said, that the game is real and that players should be treated as real humans (the fact that I, personally, do not feel these claims have met their burden of proof or validation by proper scientific study is beside the point for this argument). If we take as assumption that the game is real, that we are real rulers of small kingdoms, then it stands to reason that our alliances are real as well. Our alliances and their leaders can and do represent a collective will of the people who have joined these groups. Until recently, these alliances were just that: groups of like-minded rulers who have banded together for some cause, be it military advantage, resources, advice, friendship, etc. At first, alliances in illy represented a group of like-minded rulers who worked together, and depending on the alliance perhaps passed some overall policy, contributed to public defense, etc (like the Delian League, for a real-world example). With the advent of land claims, however, alliances stepped up from a group of rulers working together into something more. Once a geographic area comes into play, these alliances begin to resemble, and meet the criteria for, nationhood. Google has a definition for 'nation' and for 'sovereign state'. I will be using those here, and I will use my own illy alliance as an example.
Is Rome a nation? Let's look at the definition: "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory" Obviously, since our characters weren't really born, descent doesn't apply (although I guess all illyrians were "born" in the newb ring). However, we are a subjectively large group. If I need to get numbers to support that I can do it, but I think it's fair to assume that if we look at Rome's size compared to active illy population we can find a similar ratio for some small nation compared to living Earth population. So check! We have a common history (check out our alliance page if you'd like proof), we speak a common language, and we inhabit a specific territory, Westmarch. Thus, Rome seems to meet the criteria for nationhood. Since it said "or", one of those paired with the land claim would be enough. I felt we could meet more criteria, and we did! Is Rome a sovereign state? Let's look at the definition: "A sovereign state is a state with borders where people live, and where a government makes laws and talks to other sovereign states. The people have to follow the laws that the government makes." Rome has borders, clearly defined on the land claim post and map. If we "live" there is certainly debatable, but if all players are to be believed as truly ruling small kingdoms, as posited by the claim that the game is "real", I think it would be disingenuous to argue this particular point. Most likely, if you are ruling a place then you are probably living in it. Westmarch is the home of us Romans. We have a government, defined by official documents, that establishes a legislative branch known as the Senate and an executive branch with up to three executives known as Consuls. We pass policy for our members and intervene with foreign powers on their behalf. If a member fails to follow policy (breaks our laws) there are repercussions. In fact, we have even instituted such punishments as "execution" and "banishment" in extreme cases after holding internal and allowing external investigations into the conduct of certain now ex-Romans. I do not say this with pride, as it always weighs heavy on the heart of a leader to enact such punishments. I say this as it is the truth, verifiable in our histories along with our other successes and failures. Thus, we meet each and every criteria for a sovereign state. Some may wonder why I have taken the time to post this. I guess mainly because it was on my mind. I see talk about the ethics of land claims, but I think it is clear that in the real world, claiming land and forming nations has been going on for some time. This comes with many benefits for those living in that land, benefits that Rome, at least, wishes to replicate for her members. We have very lenient rules for how to get a special exemption to settle cities within our boundaries (just ask and make your case, we will work with almost anyone). We have worked with several players who had settled on our land, and have yet to require one re-locate against their will (there have been close calls, but each case was resolved by Rome and those involved, or their alliance leaders, peacefully). I contend that the Nation of Rome has rights to declare and hold our borders, as well as to define under what conditions foreign settlement happens within those borders. Rome also supports the rights of the other nations established in the Broken Lands to do the same. If you wish to argue that the very concept of a sovereign nation is unethical, I'd be interested in seeing how that conclusion is drawn. |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 02 Feb 2016 at 17:40
What is the point of any game? Is it not to "win?" And if so, doesn't the game prescribe what "winning" is? And if that is so and you have different ways to "win" are you all playing the same game? I think not. A better view of Illyriad is that it is a sandbox where we each decide in what way we wish to compete to reach what we decide means to "win." In other words, sandbox where we each can 'invent' or own game. Thus, with different measures of "winning" we have different games. Just as in a playground kids can make up their own games so too in Illyriad. The difference is that in the usual playground kids are pretty much left alone to play alone as they wish, but in Illy there are those who wish to round up all the kids and tell them what and how they shall play. And in Hockey games, as in any other games, you can't decide to change the rules for everybody unilaterally. If the rules say one thing and you, in the middle of the game, decide that you wish everybody to change the rules so that you can gain some advantage, it's not just unsportsmanlike, it wrong. Even your own words deny your premise. "So you could see the game might collecting game ..." And finally, "Best way to get influence is to make others do what you want or agree with you. So therefore even ranting in the forums about ethic can be seen part of the game," which is, pretty much, what I'm doing. The only difference is I'm not using my armies (as if I could...lol) to enforce my views or my likes or dislikes on anyone...and NOBODY has to read my posts so if they have any influence it's because the arguments are strong enough to have that influence. AJ
|
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 02 Feb 2016 at 18:17
While it may be to you that Illyriad is a "diplomacy game" why is that? Is it not because you choose to make it so as part of your vision of what it should be? Is it possible for a player, if left alone, to play completely alone? Is it a "diplomacy game" under those circumstances? And if he or she wants to play alone, what right or need does anybody have for forcing that player into the "diplomacy game" or the "war game" or whatever they are playing, by sending armies against that person? As for me "forcing" anybody to do anything, name the "force" I'm applying? I'm either not applying the type of force that forces anybody to do anything, or I am "forcing" people through my words. Now if you feel my words have "force" then you obviously think my arguments must have some merit....can you say what that merit must be? If you think my words have no merit, then they have no force and I'm not forcing anybody. So here's the thing: a lot of people wish to claim that I'm forcing something on somebody. I would like to state here that I don't have the armies to force anything anybody unless they are a lot smaller than me, and since I don't wish to do so, I won't. I won't bully anybody. If the land claimers feel threatened maybe it's because they've already lost the debate and it only remains for them to own up to their mistake and retract their intimidation of all Illyriad players and issue a Declaration of Homeland instead. But there is a difference between controlling people on the playground by intimidating them with threats of coercion, and debating with them in a forum they have no need to enter and thus are feely choosing to enter. Those who wish to use intimidation by threats of coercion in the game do so on players who have no choice. There is only one Illyriad. There are hundreds of threads in the forum. You can't play any game in the sandbox of Illyriad without entering Illyriad. You can ignore (i.e. " play") or not any debate you wish in the forums, or the entire forum itself. What does it mean to "make them play as you want?" Do I propose they cease from PVP? Do I propose they cease from claiming territory? Do I propose they, in any way significant way change their strategies or tactics? Of course, that their tactics are disrespectful of those who wish to play on the same playground with a different set of goals and styles of play...a different type of game...means that they are imposing on those players. But how would, exactly, refraining from intimidating all the players of Illy restrict or harm them in any major way? Especially in any way that they can't replace by simply settling the claimed area? And finally, when you say that they will have to be "forced" into giving up the disrespect they show other players by attempting to intimidate with threats of coercion, isn't that the saddest thing about this whole debate. Having shown it's real people playing, that the intimidating by threats of coercion is disrespectful of those very real players, having shown that they have no need to really issue such threats, and offered the land claiming alliances almost everything they could need or want, they either refuse to see the logic, or they simply don't care about the other players enough to actually take the olive branch of a Declaration of Homeland. If your opponents offer you a compromise very much in your favor and with honor, and you insist on having it all you way, isn't that pretty sad? "So I don't care you believe land claiming is bad, you have to right to your opinions, just as other people have a right to theirs." There are mere opinions, and opinions backed with logic and evidence. Some opinions are just 'mere' and others are true. It is true both of us have right to an opinion, but not all opinions are equal. The question we all have to ask is: are we going to decide which opinions are more than "mere" based upon our dislike of the messenger and irrational repugnance at what it might mean for us to actually follow the logic of his message, or are we going to follow the rational course? Fear of the truth is most palatable when it's sharp on your opponent's tongue. AJ |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 02 Feb 2016 at 19:13
Actually, what I said, and continue to say, is that the players are "in the game" and thus the effects of your and my actions have emotional impact upon them. That is not the same thing as saying the "game" is real, except as a bunch of "games." We play football and on the field we are "Vikings," "Bears" etc... and we play that game by the rules of respect the league sets for us. But off the field, while still "Vikings," or "Bears" we have other roles to play. The question here is: "should we allow this behavior in the sandbox called Illyriad?"
Do read the studies in "When gaming gets personel" The evidence that playing online games does effect the emotional state of the player is overwhelming, to the point that nobody disputes it. That the effects are positive or negative and for how long, that is the question.
Having denied the major premise of your argument, that "the game is real" some of what you propose falls by the wayside. However, I'll address what I think is your point: that the game is changing. Before, as you said, alliances were formed of "like minded" people for various reasons working together. Then you note:
and rightfully quote a definition of nationhood as a 'sovereign state' in which ""a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory" All of which leads you to a conclusion, via your own alliance as an example which says in part:
And then, go on to argue that the territory claimed by the pro land claim alliances is like a nation in that the government of that nation can make the rules. The definition given being: "A sovereign state is a state with borders where people live, and where a government makes laws and talks to other sovereign states. The people have to follow the laws that the government makes." So, correct me if I'm wrong but here's a summary of what you are saying: Assuming I actually said "Illyriad is real," the land claiming alliances are laying claim to an area and forming sovereign governments to rule those areas. This is a natural progression of Illyriad as an nation building game. Logically you are saying, (I think): To play correctly you must play as a geographical sovereign nation building game Land claimers are playing as geographical sovereign nations Land claimers are playing correctly Like I tell my students, if you have perfect logic but begin with the wrong premises, you will end with the wrong conclusions every time. It's quite possible to be perfectly logical and still wrong. When that occurs you know that either your major or minor premise are incorrect. In this case, as I've argue before, you assume we are all playing the same game. We are not, and it's disrespectful of others to force them through intimidation by threats of coercion, to do so, especially if you can play your "sovereign" nation with others who wish to play the same game without bother those who are here for other reasons. (BTW, you do an excellent job of laying all this out step by step, I very much appreciate the tone you take and only wish I could emulate it more...sigh).
Question 1: Will the Nation of Rome guarantee that all future land claiming alliances will be so generous? Question 2: Who granted the Nation of Rome sovereignty? Question 3: If I do not recognize the sovereignty of the Nation of Rome over the area they claim, will you force me to do so against my will by razing my cities? Question 4: If the answer to question 3 is "yes," then how is that not forcing me to play your game instead of my own? Question 5: Why is it necessary that non-warfare players not be allowed to freely settle in the area you claim, in light of your ability to lay claim to that area without a single declaration or threat by settling it? Question 6: Why is it necessary to intimidate your fellow players by threats of coercion when a Declaration of Homeland would get you, in most cases, the same result AND avoid even the minor problems you have? If I go the playground and they are playing baseball, out of respect I'm not going to try to fly a kite next to the pitchers mound. They don't have to say anything as it's just respectful.
I don't draw the conclusion because I don't play that game. Illyriad is an imaginary sandbox. Within that sandbox the players get to decide what forms of play are allowed and what are not. They are, and have been up until now, a pretty loose group that allowed a lot of players to play alone, in small groups, all kinds of different games, etc.... The "nations" in Illyriad are imaginary AND to those who wish to imagine them as such, they can. And they can defend their territory all they want against other players who decide to play in the "sovereign nation building" style of play. But when, by words and deeds, any group of players in Illyriad attempts to force all players to play their way, they are taking from ALL of US, the true sovereign's of the Illy, (to the degree the devs allow anyway) our sovereignty over the playground itself. Thus, you make two mistakes: 1) you start with the wrong premise -- that your way of playing is the only way; and, 2) that the land claimers are sovereign over the land they claim. The question before all of Illy is: should we allow complete sovereignty over the areas claimed or insist that all of Illy belongs to all of Illy and if any group wishes to play a game of sovereign nations they can do so only with those who wish to play their game. Land claims are applied to all players universally and enact sovereignty over all of us by declaring the rulers of the land claims have the right to seize territory for their benefit and at our expense. It is not respectful of other kids on the playground to claim what you are not using and in doing so force them to physical wrestle those resources away or call some authority. The playground belongs to the community and you play baseball, football, or whatever you play, at the behest of the community. Land claims use intimidation by threats of coercion to reverse who is in charge. We don't let the bullies control the playground and the same tactics they use shouldn't be used here. Finally, you post was, and is, an example of an excellent discussion. It is civil, well thought out, and well presented, by my book. Do keep it up. I do think you have come closer to answering why it is necessary for there to be intimidation by threats of coercion. For if you are playing the sovereign nation game it would be perfectly acceptable to do so. Now all we need is a mechanism by which an alliance can declare that they are joining that game and thus the intimidation by threats of coercion would apply to them...but not to the rest of us who may not wish to play that game. But of course, even in the sovereign nation game intimidation by threats of coercion and "removal" of players from claimed territory isn't needed as settling the area would work as well. AJ |
Posted By: jtk310
Date Posted: 02 Feb 2016 at 21:40
Read a lot of it, and I noticed the many flaws others have pointed out. I said that because I have my own opinion on whether your studies apply to illy at all, and it's dubious at best. Nice job noticing that I kind of strawman'd your argument though! I should be more careful. I was just hasty, I write these off the cuff.
Here's my big discrepancy with your reply! Those really aren't what I was trying to say. I don't think there is a right or wrong manner of play, so there is no reason I would attest that at all. Really you can remove that first statement, the other two I agree with. The fact is, I don't think ANYONE is playing incorrectly. I took discrete maths so I know a little bit about pure logic. I don't feel like actually carefully crafting a real logical statement, so maybe I have no place discussing this with you. Momma says to play to your strengths, and yours is debate. No reason for me to fall in that trap!
I think we are all playing illyriad. If you play civilization, there are tons of ways to play it. That doesn't make it a different game if you go for a cultural civilization vs a warlike civilization. It's the same game with the same basic foundation behind it. The same engine runs it, the same code determines what effect actions have. The same is true here, there is a code base that determines how this game works. Everything else is social stuff, which accounts for differences in play style just like in any other game. Unless you aren't loading elgea.illyriad.co.uk when you play this game, I contend we are on the very same game with different play styles. To cut through the minutia a bit, though, the big difference in opinion here is that you think attacking others in the game is disrespectful and I don't. I don't think your posted evidence that is supposed to prove that in-game attacks or threats will cause emotional damage even applies to this type of game or to the type of players we have. I doubt anyone is emotionally scarred by tiny battle flags slowly working toward their cities really, and I think it's a little unfair to keep pretending your evidence has any weight in this type of game when many in this very thread have pointed out that those studies are mainly regarding young players in mature games with graphic violence and realistic situations. This game has an older player base (very young people aren't allowed at all!), and nothing graphic happens here! Now on to your questions. 1) Nah, we don't tell other alliances how to behave unless they violate our policies. We aren't the LC police. 2) Our sovereignty wasn't granted by anyone. Who granted Greece sovereignty? Who granted the ACTUAL Rome sovereignty? We need only be recognized as meeting the requirements by other powers, and I think that's the case here. 3) Only if you settle in Westmarch without talking to us first, and then only if you refuse to leave after we have asked nicely and offered recompense for lost time and for the costs of exo, as we have with others. If you refused at that point, we would see if anyone wished to speak on your behalf and talk sense into you. All disputes die before a sword is drawn so far! If that didn't work, to quote Oliver Windell Holmes: "Between two groups of people who want to make inconsistent kinds of worlds, I see no remedy but force." 4) How is moving there in defiance of our policy not forcing an entire alliance to play in your style? This has been asked before, obviously. The thing is, my style ALLOWS the use of force, as do the mechanics of the game. I am not really ashamed of this, and don't believe that players of illyriad should be ashamed of using force. 5) They are allowed to settle, just not freely. Asking is a simple thing, and ensures better relations with your neighbors. If we are a sovereign state, borders must be maintained or we lose one of the defining characteristics. If you ask to stay there, you get more than simple settlement (this really factors in more in the next question). Eventually, Roman predominance in the area will lead to military protection for all inside our holdings. It will lead to a safer and happier populace in ALL of Westmarch, not just our cities. 6) Because of our eventual ambitions, we wish to have control of who is there. We wish to be able to keep, for instance, former enemies out of Westmarch. This is because we don't want them to benefit from Roman rule and then use that benefit against us. We also need strategic position and first choice of available resources to produce the best result for the entirety of our claimed area. This benefits many, and since we have not had to follow through on any threats (I ain't going to say we didn't make 'em), I think our version of the land claim is much stronger than a simple declaration. We have grand ambitions to effect grand change, and that takes grand resources and grand patience  |
Posted By: Tink XX
Date Posted: 02 Feb 2016 at 22:22
I am very much with Angrim here.
AJ, you claim that you just want to play "the AJ way", e.g. peaceful harvesting and debating in chat with members your alliance, and then you claim that it's the warmongering bullies who are stopping you from doing so. Your claim though is wildly at odds with your actions and choices. You chose to confront military players in a condescending, adversary manner over land claims, and are continuing to do so. You had publicly accused our leader of a diplo attack with no solid evidence and never followed up with a public apology to him. You chose to engage in a war with Broken Blades (they gave you multiple exit opportunities that are well documented), dragged people from other alliances into it, did not listen to any of their military advice, lost a few cities and all of your alliance mates. You then let that war fester and never accepted peace that had been offered for free to you, counter-offering BB the terms that made the entire server laugh. There are many people in Broken Lands who in fact play "the AJ way", co-existing peacefully with warmongers. We warmongers exercise diplomacy and common sense every bit as much as players who don't wish to wage war. In fact, we don't particularly care about attacking AJ, except that AJ has been so consistently confrontational with us. You think that everyone owes you respect and that you should keep preaching to us philistines to educate us, and that nobody has a right to attack you because you want people to play by your rules and grant you the "freedom of speech" right. All rights have to be earned. All actions, verbal on this forum or in-game, have consequences. |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 19:10
|
To cut through the minutia a
bit, though, the big difference in opinion here is that you think attacking
others in the game is disrespectful and I don't. I don't think your posted
evidence that is supposed to prove that in-game attacks or threats will cause
emotional damage even applies to this type of game or to the type of players we
have. I doubt anyone is emotionally scarred by tiny battle flags slowly working
toward their cities really, and I think it's a little unfair to keep pretending
your evidence has any weight in this type of game when many in this very thread
have pointed out that those studies are mainly regarding young players in
mature games with graphic violence and realistic situations. This game has an
older player base (very young people aren't allowed at all!), and nothing
graphic happens here! There is a difference between what you say I'm saying and what I've actually said. You say that I "think attacking others in the game is disrespectful," which is NOT at all what I've said. What I say is that attacking others in the game who have given no good reason for being attacked, is disrespectful and that when you use intimidation by threats of coercion that is a form of attack because it uses threats of removal should the player exercise his or her game allowed options to settle in "your" territory. I do believe this point has been made very clear in my arguments. To reduce my arguments, as you have done, to "you don't like warfare" is another 'straw man' argument. When you say, " I don't think your posted evidence that is supposed to prove that in-game attacks or threats will cause emotional damage even applies to this type of game or to the type of players we have," you, again, aren't presenting any argument that I've put forth. What I have said is that the evidence presented in that post was never supposed to prove, and no claim that it did prove, that this game causes any harm. Again, I have been very clear about that. At no place do I ever say that there is scientific proof that this game causes harm. There is anecdotal proof and I've spoken to two players who have left the game out of frustration with certain other members and their actions. That is harm. Perhaps not long term, but harm nevertheless. I've also spoken to a number of players who have experienced bullying in the game and had to help the player being bullied, sometimes by driving the bully from the game. So bad things do happen in Illy and there are good players who want to do something about the bad things that happen. But the wisest choice is to make sure we are clear on what the "bad" things are and what the "good" things are and to move toward the "good" and away from the "bad" so that more players have more fun. You mention "to the type of players we have." How would you describe those players? Obviously they are older than some games. But other than that, what would you say about them? Whatever your description is, though, you have to ask: "does the game require only those types play? In other words, if somebody who was not of the type you envision wanted to play the game, is that possible? Actually, it is possible that certain types of players should not and have not been welcome in Illy. The health of the game is directly proportional to the concern we all have in reigning in behaviors that are harmful to the game, don't you think? If we suddenly got flooded by true bully's ...one's who would 'farm' new players for instance, or "remove" players they didn't like because of their political, religious, social, etc....status or stance, would we allow that? We, the community of Illy are what we are exactly because we are self-policing. We do not allow certain types of players and once they show what they are, we have and will stop them. That is the tradition of Illy. Conversely, if peaceniks
show up and want to become traders, gatherers, builders and what not, do we
wish to encourage or discourage their participation? If we wish to encourage their participation
should we not extend the same protections to them that we do to new players
exactly because they do not wish to be warriors (where as the new player may
want to be a warrior or not but is unable due to size) should we not protect
that? In other words, the respect we
show new players encourages them to remain and grow because it recognizes they
are not threat and that their focus should be on growing rather than
fighting. Intimidation by threats of
coercion does is not a move in the right direction because it forces small to
medium peaceful players to prepare for wars they may wish to have not part of,
or to avoid settling in areas they may wish to settle.
Exactly, "unless they violate our policies" is exactly the problem. The community of Illy has the right to deny or grant policies, and only the community has that right as a whole. Your claim to sovereignty is a form of rebellion. In what is present day Utah, at one point, when it was a territory, there was a threatened movement to take that territory (which belonged to the citizens of the United States as a whole) and to separate part of it into a new country to be called "Deseret." The US decided that such a move would not be allowed because the US was sovereign over that land, not the people there. You can claim sovereignty all you want, but ultimately, your land is all of our land and the only sovereignty we have agreed to recognize is the ten square rule of settlement. In Utah the movement to create a sovereign nation was averted when those who wished to do so considered the circumstances and were persuaded peacefully that the US was the sovereign of that territory.
2) Our sovereignty wasn't
granted by anyone. Who granted Greece
sovereignty? Who granted the ACTUAL Rome
sovereignty? We need only be recognized as meeting the requirements by other
powers, and I think that's the case here. You are correct. Your sovereignty has not be granted by anyone and there a lot of us who will not be granting it any time soon. The correct method of gaining sovereignty, historically speaking, is to first ask the people living there if they wish to separate from the current sovereign (which is the whole of the Illy community in this case) and then to ask the sovereign to allow the formation of a separate nation. This was the procedure used in the case of West Virginia during the Civil War, Scotland only recently, and Barcelona in the near future. Changes of sovereignty status can come only through two methods: negotiation and war. By universally declaring sovereignty you have opted for the second without appealing at any time for the first. I would recommend that you apply for a limited sovereignty by simply making a Declaration of Homeland and dropping the intimidation by threats of coercion, which is the only thing separating you from the DOH and the only thing that claims absolute sovereignty. But think for a moment about even your current claim. Do you have the armies to defend against the whole of Illy? Of course not. Thus, at any point you could lose your absolute sovereignty because, in the end, it's not at all absolute. Why give the rest of Illyriad any reason to take the limited sovereignty you could have away by trying to stretch it into absolute sovereignty you can't maintain anyway should the denizens of Illy decide to take it from you?
3) Only if you settle in
Westmarch without talking to us first, and then only if you refuse to leave
after we have asked nicely and offered recompense for lost time and for the
costs of exo, as we have with others. If you refused at that point, we would
see if anyone wished to speak on your behalf and talk sense into you. All
disputes die before a sword is drawn so far! If that didn't work, to quote
Oliver Windell Holmes: "Between two groups of people who want to make
inconsistent kinds of worlds, I see no remedy but force." Of course Mr. Holmes was addressing the sure frustration of dealing with two incalcitrant sides. His hope, as in all things, was a peaceful resolution through negotiation. One does not throw out the goal of peace just because there is a war going on. The underlying belief that you can be sovereign of that area is the problem. You wish to be absolute sovereigns but your sovereignty, as all sovereignty's is subject to the will of the larger and stronger group and thus, it is they who indulge your whims or not. It may that they do so forever, or it may be that tomorrow you wake up with massive armies at your doorsteps. Why not seek a permanent peace and adopt a DoH and show that you are wiling to work with the larger group and to respect their actual sovereignty?
4) How is moving there in
defiance of our policy not forcing an entire alliance to play in your style?
This has been asked before, obviously. The thing is, my style ALLOWS the use of
force, as do the mechanics of the game. I am not really ashamed of this, and
don't believe that players of illyriad should be ashamed of using force. Let's suppose I move to your claimed area. You speak to me, you remonstrate, and you then remove me. If I wish to settle in that area and keep my claim, I have to resist. I would not have to resist if you didn't attack me, but you have declared that you will attack me, and so I am forced to build armies, etc. Now let's look at it from your perspective. I move into your claim and settle. It is true that I am taking space, and that I might use some of the resources in your claim, the but amount is insignificant. How has my presence I forced you to not make war? Can you not still enter into PVP with willing parties? Are there no other warriors out there willing to fight? (In fact I would surmise that the use of land claims will lead to fewer wars in the future as the clustering would make it very, very difficult to take on a land claiming alliance). As for your style ALLOWing for the use of force, it also ALLOWS for restraint from the use of force, does it not? I recognize the need for force in some situations, like when you are attacked, but I also recognize the right to restrain yourself from using force. Use force when in PVP or when attacked, and restrain yourself when not in PVP and/or attacked. Your use of intimidation by threats of coercion tells the peaceful that you do not intend to restrain yourself against them. Which forces them, even now, to start building armies when they may not wish to do so,
5) They are allowed to
settle, just not freely. Asking is a simple thing, and ensures better relations
with your neighbors. If we are a sovereign state, borders must be maintained or
we lose one of the defining characteristics. If you ask to stay there, you get
more than simple settlement (this really factors in more in the next question).
Eventually, Roman predominance in the area will lead to military protection for
all inside our holdings. It will lead to a safer and happier populace in ALL
of Westmarch, not just our cities. Exactly. "Just not freely." The game grants us to settle anywhere there is a free space. The players have determined, for the good of the game, that 10 squares is the space of sovereignty around a settlement. You have decided that the area of you claim is no longer free to settle, and thus, you have declared that you will have two types of players there: those in your alliance, the kings, queens, barons, and the rest, and the slaves -- those who are their at your indulgence but who will always live under a threat of being "removed" should they incur the wrath for any reason, of the "sovereign."
6) Because of our eventual
ambitions, we wish to have control of who is there. We wish to be able to keep,
for instance, former enemies out of Westmarch. This is because we don't want
them to benefit from Roman rule and then use that benefit against us. We also
need strategic position and first choice of available resources to produce the
best result for the entirety of our claimed area. This benefits many, and since
we have not had to follow through on any threats (I ain't going to say we
didn't make 'em), I think our version of the land claim is much stronger than a
simple declaration. We have grand ambitions to effect grand change, and that
takes grand resources and grand patience As for keeping your former enemies out of Westmarch I'd offer that that should have been part of any peace settlement you made...and it probably is. As for future enemies, I'd be surprised if, once you issue a DoH, any of your enemies were to try to settle there as they would be putting their own city in much, much greater danger than the danger they might pose to you. The point of clustering is exactly that you have a much higher concentration of power. You don't need every single space in the area to have that. I'm even willing to bet that if you approached all those potential enemies and just asked politely that their members stay out of Westmarch (without the threats of removal), you'd get pretty much complete agreement. A DoH is a notification that you intend to cluster in a particular area and if you follow it up with actually doing so, you accomplish your goals faster than the current method that needs to be constantly defended. In general few alliances want to start wars as they are very costly. One of the precursors to war though, is often the issuance of belligerent statements of intimidation backed by the threat of coercion. So take a step back and retract such a statement. Do it for your own protection, for the peace of Illy, and for the improvement of the game. As for benefiting from Roman rule, what benefits? You speak of safety, but from whom are the peaceful players threatened? Are not the only real threats coming from the warrior class who insists on land claims? And are they safe from the rules you might decide to create in the future? Once you are allowed absolute sovereignty you have absolute control. And those whom might allow to settle in your area become your subjects...meaning they can be subjected to any rule you decide to make. I know you claim now to be benevolent rulers. But you've already shown that you will "do what it takes" to seize control of an area that rightfully belongs to all the players of Illy. In the future, should a player grow large and powerful while living under Roman rule, large enough to be taking resources you feel you need, will you not "do what it takes" to maintain your rule and make some more rules about how big a non-alliance player can become? Or how many NPC's he or she can take, or how many caravans of resources, or what and how many minerals or herbs? The answer is that you have already declared that your needs are above all the needs of any and all other players in your area and that any settler there will do as you say. But let's take it further. Suppose you are being hammered by a lot of other alliances and my two or three cities are in your land. You are running out of resources. What's to keep you from "taxing" my cities? What's to keep you from "conscripting" my soldiers? The point is, if you take absolute sovereignty, I have no safety. Your guarantees are nice, but you've already shown that you will "do what it takes" including restricting the right of settlement of all players of Illy. In the end your own actions show the danger to the players of Illy more than any words I could ever utter. Intimidation does not improve the fun for all, it does not secure what you wish to secure any faster, and it invites slavery and wars. Slavery in your lands and wars against you. It is impractical and unwise even from a pragmatic point of view, let alone unethical. Contrast this with dropping the intimidation by threats of coercion and adopting a DoH. With a DoH you don't control your land absolutely but within the limits of settlement and the respect of other players, respect earned by the very willingness to put all of Ily ahead of your desire for absolute control. You are still free to cluster for strength. But without unilaterally exempting others from the land. You are still free to grab all that land by settling it, but not the land you haven't yet settled. And, because you have issued a DoH, should you find your "enemies" blatantly attempting to settle in the midst of your cities (which would be impossible if you just spaced them correctly), you would have justifiable grounds for war since if it was blatant it would be obvious what they intended to start a war. Personally I can't think of many situations where that would happen, but it could. And if it did, and you went to war, the rest of Illy would probably let you clobber the new-comers, which you could do because you would naturally have the necessary clustered strength. Yet, even if you were to claim the sovereignty to the borders of your land, any alliance that wished to attack you could just cluster at the borders anyway. So your "absolute sovereignty" does very to protect you from any determined enemy. More to the point though, why not let your enemies settle where they want as both you and your enemies are warriors. Wouldn't it insure more wars if you were to do that? More fun and none of the expense to other non-warrior players.The choice is, Illyriad can either have a small group of "sovereign" nations fighting it out to the subjugation of all other styles of play, or it can be free. Join the fight for freedom and drop the land claim for a Declaration of Homeland. AJ |
Posted By: JodaMyth
Date Posted: 04 Feb 2016 at 23:22
|
I havent read the entirety of this thread because I, like everyone else, have a finite lifespan. My understanding is that AJ is unhappy with how the game is being played, that sounds like a fine opinion to me. Everyone is allowed to have those opinions, personally I have been on Illy over a year and a half now and never have unwillingly been in a PvP situation. Then again I don't go out of my way to control the way others play the game, like both AJs rants and the land claims have done in their own way. That is part of what drew me to Illy, in previous games PvP was just part of everyday events and not some massive spectacle to debate. You did not need a reason to go to war, if asked for one "boredom" was, and still is, a valid excuse. If I may offer some advice, if a game pushes you to type 10's of thousands of words on a forum trying to protest recent events in said game then it may be time to try something new that doesn't cause you as much distress or inundate you with a need to mold the game into what you think it should be.
|
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2016 at 01:16
But Joda, I LIKE my style of play. I like being the guy who points out that gamers are people too. I like reminding people that people should not be treated like pixels on the page, that what happens in Illy doesn't always stay in Illy, and that irrational responses to rational arguments are exactly that...irrational. I like what I do and am having some fun doing it. But most of all I like most of the people here and find that they too wish that as many people as can have fun have as much fun as they can while here. I'm not trying to get you or anybody else to give up your fun, but to only recognize that it is impossible for everybody to have fun in the sandbox without some reasonable accommodation for the fun others want to have...which means in some cases giving up a bit of your fun for the sake of everybody else. By force I mean, of course not only intimidation by threats of coercion, but actual in-game force where you take people's cities because you don't like them, you are bored, you don't like that they out debated you, and so on and so on. I say as much as possible play the way you want, but allow other the right to do the same out of respect. Now of course you want to reduce the logic of argument to "my opinion" but I'm buying that. It's not my opinion, it's what logic and rational thought says. Even if I didn't think it, it would still be true. And how do you know that it's not what logic and rational though would say? You can't say because you haven't read it. So you have no basis to claim, as you imply by your statement, that it's "merely" my opinion. There is reality you know, and you've just run into it. Hope your toe doesn't hurt too much. Besides that, you probably read about 6 times faster than you write. How about actually reading my posts with some of the time you spend not answering any of my points. Read just one carefully and then respond to the logic or lack thereof. I think you will be glad you did, and I certainly will as sometimes, in spite of ourselves, we become persuaded. AJ |
Posted By: JodaMyth
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2016 at 03:02
How did you know I named my coffee table Reality? You yourself can't apply any logic apart from your own sense of it to how a person should act. Save the strict sense of logic for playing Vulcans on w/e Star Trek game is out now. I have a story, I was recently playing a different game.. I saw a cow and proceeded to slingshot it far away (Sorry Rill). Does this mean I have a moral dislike of bovine creatures? No. Would I like to catapult a cow IRL? Probably not. It means there was something I could do within the allowable confines of the game's mechanics and did it, I intend to do the same on multiplayer when it opens to other pixelated humans. That may make me a bad person in your eyes but someone disliking me for in game actions doesn't bother me since it doesn't truly reflect on myself as a person, only the persona I choose to project in a game. When it comes to your post, I don't need to read them, they are all just new words saying the same thing you have been saying for months now and rebuttals to others posts that I also have no intention of reading since they are counterpoints to you repeating yourself. If you want me to read them don't make them so gosh dang long... I'm sure you can get the message across with less words. You keep saying how you think people should treat others in a game intended for both peaceful living and PvP. Both are easily achievable on Illy, the issue comes when a "peaceful" player tries to insult and tell the non peaceful ones what to do. They react in the way they have chosen to play the game, leading the "innocent" peaceful player to cry foul when attacked. I'm sure there is stuff about respect somewhere on here, how you are not being respected and everyone should respect and love each other. In a dumbed down sense of browser game dynamics; fighters fight, farmers farm, traders trade and soapboxers get razed. Illy is far on the peaceful side allowing your cities a long lifespan. Make sure to be thankful for that. In the end it will be your sense of logic and what you believe that rational thought should be. I have cohabitated peacefully with all of Illy for prob as long as you have been playing. Have you considered that it is just you personally that has been skewing your sense of Illy and how aggressive it is? You were brought up in a top PvP training alliance there, if you had spent more time learning to enjoy that side and less filling the chat with paragraphs we would probably be having a very different conversation, or hopefully none at all. Sorry for the long post here, I don't have much to do on Illy and am killing some time rambling. |
Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2016 at 13:08
lol @ "probably not" as opposed to "absolutely not" ------------- https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2016 at 17:51
" You yourself can't apply any logic apart from your own sense of it to how a person should act." --- If by this you mean it's better to act without reason and logic, history would probably prove you wrong. Reason has provided so many benefits that pure emotion has not, it's just no contest. As for "my own sense" I lay out my two premises quite clearly. "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" and "Avoid unnecessary harm to others." I think I'm probably in the vast majority in beginning with these premises. But of course, it may be that we should "look out for number one" above all things, and "Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you." But, pragmatically speaking, groups tend to lose cohesiveness and become far less fun when people forget that the health of the group is more important in the long run than looking out for number one. In fact, it could be argued that there are all kinds of laws restricting that attitude in every real society. Thus, while you and a lot of other people would like to reduce my arguments to "mere opinion" the use of logic, reasoning, and evidence only shows that it is more likely that they are true than not. Second, I'm not speaking of NPC's, and have made that clear in a number of places. Perhaps you shoud review what I've said as you will find that a lot of times I'm repeating because people are not offering any fresh insights or perspectives. Thus, rebuttal of weak rebuttals is necessary since people aren't actually reading what I've said but, in general, responding with emotion and the first thing that comes to mind. As for insulting the non-peaceful players, it's not an insult to tell a thief he's a thief. The only thing required is that you have labeled his actions correctly. If he feels insulted because somebody told him the definition of a thief was one who steals things, and then points out that he is stealing things, well, his feelings are just that...feelings. Then, since words have consequences, if he decides to add another error to his ways and attacks you or attempts to burn down your house, is that too your fault? I mean is he justified in that behavior since his actions fit the definition of what he is doing? The problem with using an "insult" as an excuse for taking revenge is that it's not necessarily a logical decision. Nobody wants another to point out their flaws and we are generally pretty darn forceful in defending our vision of how close we are to our "ideal self." When someone points out to us that we fall short of even our own "ideal self" our first reaction is the "fight" reaction and usually isn't too pretty. What should happen, I think, is that we take a big breath, consider the thing, ask ourselves if the definition of that which we were called, matches our actions, and then, if we find that it does, change our actions. It's not easy because it goes to the core of who we think we are, but, as I can say from experience, it's the wise thing to do. In fact, it's the right thing to do pragmatically too. Suppose you have a wardrobe malfunction of which you are not aware. Would you rather go through the day unaware, or have somebody tell you the minute they see it? The embarrassment of the immediate situation is obvious, but, for me, knowing at the end of the day that my "flaw" was out in the open all day long, would make me feel even worse. Fixing things when you discover them is always better than trying to pretend they don't exist. What you do in the game is done by you. It's not done by your avatar or anybody else. Thus, the mental and emotional processes by which you make those decisions reflect your personality. It can't be helped because you are "present" in the game. One of the problems cyberpsycologist have discovered in gaming is the psychological distance created by the double anonymity. The biggest thing I keep pushing is to realize that just because you have a different name, and I have a different name, and both of us are using strange avatars to represent us, doesn't mean our real selves are not "present" in the game. If we work at remembering that we will find that we will, indeed, act with less aggression and more willingness to allow for others proclivities. As for my "training" it was what it was. As I said when I joined NS, I was doing so because I knew that somewhere along the line I'd probably have somebody pouncing on me. Turns out I was right. The thing is, I am playing the game the way I like to play these things. I am challenging people with ideas and winning arguments. I feel like a winner because people haven't taken the logical points I've made and provided any counter logic. I've done this several times and there has been an avoidance of actually answering the logic I present. The only way to way to beat sound logic is to use logic to show that it isn't sound. Smart people exist in Illy, but they haven't really put their minds to the problem but instead, sadly, think they can answer irrefutable logic with force. In the end, because I believe we should live our lives by reason, I win. I win the argument and I prove the illogic of their actions by taking the hits they foolishly think are appropriate. Jejune, you are a very good writer and a very smart person. How about you try to refute the logic of what I'm saying? Just take the end of the preceding pose where I tell you the six attack points my logic provides. Take any one of them or all of them and tell me why the premises are wrong. If you can't, or won't, then for what reason do you have for opposing my ideas? It's sort of like the guy who decides he isn't going to vote. If you don't engage in the election you have no basis for complaining of the outcome. If you don't deal with the logic of my arguments you have no basis for complaining of the conclusions to which they lead. As for my personality, I do believe that I've stated it before. I do believe that people don't like my hard hitting style of debate, but then again, if you ask why, you will find a good deal of it is frustration that they can't or won't deal with the logic in a careful and well ordered manner. Syllogisms are not that hard. Finally, you might not believe this, but not everybody hates me. Most of the ones who don't are on the LC side, and they might just have some ulterior motives. And of those who are not, well, in speaking to them, most haven't even read what I've written and refuse to do so because they've heard I'm a bad dude. One player who is currently attacking me told me that he is doing it because I intend to attack his alliance! He heard a rumor to that effect and so he sends his armies...what is this Junior High! LOL Thanks for your honest and well written opinion. We may disagree but at least we keep it civil. AJ |
Posted By: JodaMyth
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2016 at 19:12
Have you considered Illy to be an outlet for some to act out their less socially acceptable tendencies in an environment where it is acceptable to do so? Implying that I would call a thief a thief in real life is a bit of a stretch, I would call the cops. I can understand what you mean about players having real time, money and emotions vested in Illy, but at the end of the day it is a sandbox game with no "wrong" way of playing, only ways that people view as wrong. "I am challenging people with ideas and winning arguments. I feel like a winner" I'm glad you feel that way but you are losing on the game of Illy. I don't hate you either Aj
 It's only a game after all. I will admit I have a slight dislike of the loooong posts but as with many things I dislike I simply skip them, if I have the option. |
Posted By: Kavenmetack
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2016 at 19:36
Didn't you say the war won't end until B!B surrenders to you?
|
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2016 at 21:10
|
JodaMyth, And what is your definition of "winning"in Illy? You see the problem. You insist on measuring my "winning or losing" for me and then agree that each person can set what "winning or losing" means for themselves...the nature of the sandbox. So if I feel like I'm winning, I'm winning and if you feel like I'm losing, I'm losing, which, I guess, means there are no winners or losers in Illy, only players. And if there are no winners or losers then it's not a formal game but an informal playground where we play for a while and then leave. There is no "end game" here. How about that. AJ Kevanmetack (I so wanted to write Keven Mitnick) I'm not sure what my unwillingness to "cry uncle" has to do with this. Maybe by that you mean I should do so? Personally I think their attacks unwarranted and unjust and because the cities they take or not aren't that important to me in the grand scheme of things it think it just demonstrates what I've been saying all along AND shows that they continue to believe that I'm playing the game the way they think I should play the game where cities matter. I can't honestly say, though, that I don't care that my hard work is destroyed unjustly, but I don't care enough to not wait for their surrender. I'm a very patient person and if it takes years, so be it. AJ |
Posted By: JodaMyth
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2016 at 21:37
First, thank you for keeping it short. I was using the term "losing" looking at Illy as a city builder or a PvP game or any game you intend to actually progress forward. When an alliance is razed during a war they are widely considered to be the losing side. While you cannot be completely taken out of the game your ability to play the game is greatly diminished. With no towns or a tiny new town Illyriad becomes a chat room with an interactive background. If you want to play like that you cannot lose. That would be about the equivalent of using a queen from chess in a game of checkers and announcing yourself to be winning. You are on the same board but not playing it the same way as anyone else. Does this make that style of playing wrong to the majority of players? Yes. It is saying "I am winning because I said so"(Just with a lot more words). Much like your Junior high comment, winning by declaring yourself the winner is generally saved for lower grade school aged players. I'm not implying you are one because I remember you mentioning you are a collegiate level master debater and you would be too young to play Illy |
Posted By: Kavenmetack
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2016 at 22:16
| My point is that fact you want them surrenders to you. Which means you will have to attack them again (you did say at one point "hope I don’t get big enough to try again because this war will not end until justice is done."). So him saying that you intend to attack his alliance isn't far fetched. |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2016 at 17:37
|
Kavenmetack, you are right. But my intention is not to "force" them to surrender but to persuade them. Thus I will not have to "attack" them at all. I believe the evidence and logic so compelling that someday they will come to the same conclusion as I and change their own minds. But you are right that "surrendering" does imply force. I apologize for not making myself clear. If I had the intention of building my armies up large enough to even have a smidgeon of a chance at taking them on it would take years anyway so it's highly unlikely that that would be my intention. My only excuse is that I asked for why the person thought I was building my armies up and he said he "heard" it....a rumor. That the rumor may have been true (or at least based upon what my statement implied), is irrelevant to the fact that to him it was a rumor. In Junior High we take our rumors seriously, not seriously enough to investigate, but seriously enough to get mad. As adults we know better and do the investigation so that when we are asked we can give direct evidence. At least that's what I think we SHOULD do. Thanks for clarifying that for me. I stand corrected. AJ |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2016 at 19:58
Yes, you are right. We can define winning the way others do or we can play independently and get out of the game what we want. But of course, at one time it was "widely considered" that the earth was flat. Sometimes things change. More to the point, since it's a sandbox with the explicitly stated focus that each player can decide for himself or herself what it means to "win," that others think the same way as you is irrelevant. Second, if I put a queen on the a checker board and am, therefore, not playing checkers, is it possible for me to play whatever game I wish on said board at the same time you play checkers? If not, then the example is not parallel. In Illyriad I can play my game the way I wish and you can play yours the way you wish. If you go into a room with a thousand players and there are a thousand checker boards laid out, can I play chess? Does the fact that the other 999 are playing checkers mean that I'm wrong to play chess? And if I actually reach "checkmate" does that mean I shouldn't claim I've won? Your problem is you still wish to restrict the range of play and envision what it means to "win" as if Illyriad is a single game or perhaps a single style of game. Illyriad is not a single game, it's thousands of games being played on an imaginary "game board" by thousands of players, no two of which, probably have the same goals (i.e what it means to win). Since this is true my whole argument is about how you negotiate these game so that as many can enjoy the game and "win" as possible. Using intimidation by threats of coercion to restrict how others play, (meaning thwarting their "win") when it isn't necessary, is not enhancing the game, but hurting it. As to my style of play being "wrong" to the majority of players, I ask, upon what basis? What moral standard can you point to, and what logical sequence of statements lead from that can you produce to show that my way of playing is "wrong?" It's a moral question because you have made it one. Now prove it. My style is unusual. I'm an unusual person. My type of personality is less than .01 of a percent of the population so it's not surprising I play differently. But the game allows even my style and since nothing I do interferes directly with your game, why interfere with mine by using intimidation by threats of coercion on the game board or in the forums for that matter? Besides, when you reply to my post you've put your queen in my game and I do intend to eventually checkmate. AJ |
Posted By: JodaMyth
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2016 at 23:45
That's a misconception, nearly all educated people believed that the world was round since the 3rd century B.C. (Thank you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth" rel="nofollow - wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth" rel="nofollow - & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth" rel="nofollow - pedia )
If you decide the rules of the game you can put whichever piece you want on the checkers board. A Queen, a playing card, some dice... you individually are determining that you are winning based on the game you have designed. Combining our analogies, with your self-determined play style you may consider yourself to be winning. Looking at the server as those 1k checkers boards, your towns, and by extension yourself, would be the "Queen" placed on the checkers board which are being removed from it and the players are currently watching you tell the people who say "You can't use a queen in checkers" being called bullies and threatening. You are right, there is no strict rules on how to "win" on a sandbox game, but much like playground games there are ones set up and recognized by the players involved i.e. tag, red rover, etc. You are not playing Illyriad the game now, you are instead talking while most in-game assets you have are removed from you. Much like someone who was tagged before calling no tag backs I believe your words may be too late. Not to compare you to conspiracy theorist but
there are people who fully believe we haven't landed on the Moon, they have
faith in their own logic in why it never happened. Using self-described logic
to make yourself right does not make you correct to anyone but yourself. Perhaps that is all you need but you will need more than your own personal logic to convince the masses you are the great messiah here to rid Illy of the evils of threats by coercion and alliances who are so questionable at war they broke all their blades before it even began.
I haven't intimidated or threatened you that I
remember. Even when I was in an alliance that was at war with you I did not
make any aggressive actions towards you. Please save that "Stop
bullying me" style of talk for someone else, I don't need to lower myself
to making threats or intimidating you. I mean this as a non-threatening hypothetical,
since I won’t actually do it, but if I truly wanted to attack and raze you, I
wouldn't waste my time on here debating it; I would just do it. Alas I have chosen to play Illy in a peaceful manner and have been very successful... mostly... pretty...kind of.. well one razed players town but he really had it coming. There may be a lot of NPC animals that may disagree with me being a pacifist but that isn't the
point.
Since we are playing a game now... uhmm Pawn to
B4 and do you have any 2's? |
Posted By: Hyrdmoth
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 13:17
|
aj, who is intimidating you? My (limited) experience of land claims is that if one asks nicely you can negotiate settling within another alliance's land claim. Your experience may vary, because people might decide they don't want to share their space with such a disputatious player. This is also true, some of the time, for your much vaunted 10-square rule. Many people simply want to know, ahead of time, that you want to settle eight or nine squares away, and don't raise an objection. Returning to the issue of the silversteel mine that I raised previously, I think you are hanging onto semantics by arguing that people who have occupied such squares with armies have "settled" those squares. The game sets a maximum occupation timescale of 14d 59m 59s on such armies. This is in no way analogous to a settled city which, after all, will take at least many months to develop. The threat of force is quite explicit in the presence of an occupying army, which will kill miners of a player who is not in the same alliance (or one with a confed/nap with the alliance of the occupying player). In order for a new player to mine these squares they will have to do one of three things: 1. Join the alliance of the occupying player (or one of it's confeds/naps) and arrange a time to mine there with the owning player. 2. Negotiate mining access with the owning player, perhaps paying a fee to do so. 3. Fight with their own military forces to take control of the mine. This is exactly the same situation as pertains with land claims, with one, fairly important, exception. Land claims are made publicly, and everyone can see what they are (thanks to an excellent map). Rare mineral locations are kept secret. Occupying armies, in my experience, often have large quantities of scouts in order to thwart the inquisitive diplomats of new players looking for the interesting rare mineral locations. I don't complain about this - I see it as part of the game - but I think it points to a logical inconsistency in your argument.
|
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 16:56
I see your two pawns and raise you a fish.  AJ |
Posted By: Tink XX
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 17:50
Indeed! It must belong to one of the 180 species from the order Anseriformes.  |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 18:05
First, the claiming of the mines by occupying the mines is no different than claiming a settlement site with an occupying army. Both have been allowed and both are actual occupations. The same tactic could be used by the land claimers if they wished though it would be hard to figure out where they would get all those commanders. It's actually an interesting idea since if they grabbed all the good sites in the "buffer zone" with armies it would be the same as using them on the mines. The point is, the 7 food squares occupied by armies to save them for settlement is occupying them. Claiming land you do not occupy or is not within the 10 square idea, is NOT occupying but occupying via intimidation by threats of coercion. So there are at least two differences. First the mines are occupied. If the land claimers wish to occupy the needed area, I've already said that is the right way to do it. I don't care if they use armies spaced properly or not, it's part of the game mechanics and does not overtly use intimidation by threats of coercion. The second way is exactly that. If I'm occupying a space it may be a discouragement to you, but it isn't an intimidation by threats of coercion. If you leave me alone on my space, there is no intimidation and the only coercion that could be used would be your choice to attempt to remove me. The general rule in this sandbox, just as in any playground, is: if you're sitting in the swing you own the swing, but if you are not sitting in the swing you can't reserve it for when you eventually get there...the owner is the occupier. So unless you can point to overt statements of intimidation by those occupying the mines (made before they did so, btw) then the intimidation by threats of coercion cannot be possible as there were no threats issued. Thanks for your contribution as it certainly is a fresh approach. AJ |
Posted By: JodaMyth
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 18:06
You aren't arguing for a fact though, you are arguing to support the playstyle you feel should be the best represented. I do agree with you to an extent, I personally don't care what players do as long as it is not effecting myself or my alliance. I do believe that someone should be accountable for what they say though. In the same way I think players should be allowed to play they want, I think other players can try to oppress or attack another player since that is within their scope of playing the game the way they want. You are not the Galileo of Illy.
That is to imply you are minding your own business. From what I have seen you have been playing with your queen on you checkers board and telling the other people playing their games that they should be doing it differently. You can't both expect to be left alone and try telling others what they should be doing. In your flying a kite to baseball example it is possible to share the space, but in Illy it seems more like you are bringing a cricket bat up home plate. I, for lack of a better analogy, have been flying my kite around for a long time on Illy and never had an issue with a baseball team messing it up.
I think once the use of force becomes involved it is assault. Since you enjoy bringing RL examples into this, if the country you lived in went into a war that you opposed, would you leave the country? Can you say with 100% certainty that your elected leader speaks on your personal behalf? Just because you disagree with something an alliance is doing does not take away from the reasons you have chosen to stay there. It is not always clear cut like that. You were in an alliance that was fighting the one I was currently in. That would naturally make you my enemy wouldn't it? Yet I did not threaten you, let alone attack. I made it clear to you that I had no intention of doing so.
And when you say, "he had it coming" I assume you thought he was engaged in some kind of verbal or game related abuse? And if so what would have called that abuse? Maybe 'bullying?' or 'perhaps name-calling?', or 'trolling?'" Whatever you would have labeled it, it would have been a negative label and you took action based upon that label. And if you did, you did so because he or she was interfering with either your or somebody play. And if it wasn't yours, that somebody was probably smaller than the difficult person and you felt justified in your actions because that smaller player couldn't do it himself or herself. What, exactly justified the razing of his towns? I suspect it was behavior that was intimidating to others and may have indicated a threat of force? How about clarifying the situation and seeing if you too, do not appreciate those types of tactics. And if you didn't then, what has changed now? That player had directly insulted, threatened and attacked/thieved/blighted my smaller alliance members. He had cursed at me several times in IGMs, there was a deep dislike of myself and my alliance (He just hates training alliances and has the temperament of a small foul mouthed child). I was in a different alliance visiting when his happened to engage in war with that alliance. I took it as an opportunity to remove a viable threat from the area of my alliance mates. Like I said I have chosen to play Illy in a peaceful manner. All I can say about the case above is that even pacifists need to fight sometimes. I have gone the warmonger route before on previous game, for me it is a choice to how I play. I cannot condemn others for playing how they want. When compared to playstyles I have adopted in the past even the players attacking you have been nice up to this point.
The thing is, JodaMyth, if you live in a house of French speakers you may be expected to speak French. If you hang out with people who would use overt intimidation by threats of coercion you will probably eventually become convinced such tactics are acceptable AND endorse them. It's sort of like living in a French house, isn't it? If you don't speak French, eventually you will. I would know going in that I would eventually learn French and not try telling them to learn English to suit the way I want to live in the house.
Since we are playing a game now... uhmm Pawn to
B4 and do you have any 2's? I found waldo and have rolled a 6.
 |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 18:08
Well how about that. You agree with me. LOL Yes, I knew that while it was logical, it wasn't air tight. But it's is funny, at least to me. AJ |
Posted By: Carbonara
Date Posted: 09 Feb 2016 at 04:51
|
Is there a possibility that perhaps violent games don't cause violence,
but violent people are more inclined to play violent video games? Also, perhaps its not violent games that are the problem, but heated arguments on the forums (and global chat) of delightful games like this one. lol 
|
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 09 Feb 2016 at 18:22
Let's talk about "play style." In many, many games somewhat like Illyriad there are players who have an "aggressive game play" style that allows them to intimidate by threats of coercion. Most of us have run into games where that is the dominant play style. Are, on the whole, those games friendly to those who wish to be far less aggressive? Is it not true that even in games where there can be multiple goals (like here and LoU, for instance) that the "aggressive game play" can get out of hand? Is it not true that those type of players generally develop a definition of "winning" that may not be that of all players, but does become the dominant measure of the game. Look at what I've said about my own definition of winning and see if you are laughing. If you aren't, you are probably in the minority. You see, it begins with the community giving into not only the methods of "winning" but also the very measure of what it means to "win" in the sandbox. Look at the large alliances and ask if one reason they aren't willing to actually take a stand is because they've let the idea of being a "ranked" alliance become the only "win" that matters? I've spoken to more than one leader of those alliances and the ones to whom I have spoken are pretty much against intimidation by threats of coercion. But of course, it might cost them the "win" if they actually send troops into the battle. In the end, that makes them, and all of us, "losers." You see, the "aggressive game play" is okay if it's in a game where it's the only style allowed by the rules or the conventions of the game players. Most "sandbox" games get to that style with it's "proper measure" of "winning" pretty fast. Illyriad has been almost unique in that early on the players rejected intimidation by threats of coercion. They fought a long war over it and "removed" those who would use that tactic, especially against small players and alliances. That's the history of Illyriad. Today we face a new wave of "aggressive game players" who wish to tell all of us that domination is the point of the game. They wish to, both by example and by intimidation, get us to buy the idea that domination is the only respected measure of winning. But I do not wish to make that the sole measure of winning and to provide for other respected avenues and goals. Let's turn back to the history of this game again. Let's ask ourselves of whom we are most proud? Who is spoken of win respect and is most responsible for the meta-game we enjoy today...the one where friendliness and helpfulness by so many is such a shock to new players who have often left other games like Illyriad out of frustration with the intimidation by threats of coercion -- the "aggressive game play" style. In the end you can dominate the map for a bit or go down in history for keeping Illyriad the friendly, un-intimidating place it is. I to "don't care what players do as long as it is not effecting myself or my alliance" but unfortunately it is. It is effecting you and your alliance, indirectly now, but directly in the future. Do you really think the idea of "domination" will be only for a small piece of BL? Once established there do you really think they'll all settle down and play nice with you? The point of "aggressive game play" is domination of EVERYBODY and the use of intimidation by threats of coercion will be used wherever it can be used...which means at your doorstep at some point. More to the point though, even if it isn't directly effecting you now, it is and will do so in the future at least by discouraging growing payers and by encouraging the use of intimidation by threats of coercion in those new players. It's a bit like a disease in that once you let it become okay it spreads. As for accountable for what they say, well, I'm not surprised. I am accountable for what I say. The question is not if a person should not take responsibility for what he or she says, or is not accountable for it, it's if what was said justified corporeal punishment, and to what extent. My belief is that the punishment should fit the crime, both in style and duration. Not sure how that translates to this game, but I suspect kicking somebody back to the newb ring a bit harsh especially if he or she mends their ways. What do you think? Yes, other players can "try to oppress or attack another player." I've never argued otherwise. But the history of the players of Illyriad disagree with you on this, or at least the winners of the battles over the issue. They decided that new players should not be oppressed. They decided the 10 square rule should be respected as a way of reducing the oppression (so that cities could not be put down next to smaller players cities and those cities besieged and captured, among other things). Thus, while oppression is possible by the game mechanics, the meta-rules seem to think that it's not a good thing to use without some restraint. In the past some of the larger alliances banned together to establish the meta-rules because they felt they were good for the game (and possibly, though I don't have any evidence for this, for them as well). But more to the point is that if you allow oppression you change the game into a single play style game. Oppression means you are either dominated ...which means controlled....or you fight...which means a military. The sandbox does not require you play those styles, but by allowing oppression you will be required to leave or become a fighter. This is especially true if you take strong stances in the forums of course.. When you say I'm not "minding my own business" and that I have been "playing with [my] queen on [my] checkers board," you may be right. But it's MY checkers board, so if I want to put my queen on it, what's it to you. But of course, your beef is that you suppose I'm "telling the other people playing their games that they should be doing it differently." You would be right about the cricket bat to home plate if the forums were home plate. You would be right about that if I were sending armies out to force players to play my way. Neither is true or has ever been true. If I were big enough to do that I might, since my opponents have decided that "words have consequences" I might be tempted to respond to their words in the same manner they have responded to mine...I MIGHT, but probably wouldn't as I believe in the sanctity of debate. What is said at the podium stays at the podium and you don't have the right to punch your opponent in the mouth in the hallway because he implied something about character in the debate. The only justifiable answer to an insult is the truth presented at the podium. That's my belief and others' have less forgiving positions. But of course, "minding my own business" is exactly what I'm doing. It's my, yours, and every players business to pay attention to the overall health of the game and to protect that health either by engaging in positive actions or by refraining from negative ones. When one side won't engage in positive actions to protect the game, the other side will engage in negative ones at will. Nothing need be done if freedom is worth nothing. So I am, and you are, minding our business. I do it here because that's where I do it best. Others may have, and probably will have, other venues where they can get involved. My hope is that HERE we fight the fight and HERE we all decide to make the health of the game our primary concern when in the game. Let's go back to the room. 1000 checker boards. 999 are playing checkers. 1, (me) playing a strange game of my own design. I say, move my queen a couple of spaces. How does that interfere with the other 999? It doesn't. So one of those players tells me that I have to play checkers I ask, why? Then, when he tries to threaten me, I get a bit upset. Your perspective imagines everybody playing the same game on the same board, but, in essence, we play different games on the same board at the same time. To do that we must be a bit accommodating of other gamers. We must refrain from making them play our game. We must refrain from interfering with their game as much as possible. You think that my writing in the forums and occasional discussions in GC is interfering with their game? How so? Am I the one using intimidation by threats of coercion? Am I the one telling them they can't play PVP? I deny both charges. I'm not dictating to them, I in the process of slowly, and tenaciously convincing them to change their perspective. And for the most part, I'm doing it in a place where they have no need to go....so if they are reading this, they choose to read this. That is to imply you are minding your own business. From what I have seen you have been playing with your queen on you checkers board and telling the other people playing their games that they should be doing it differently. You can't both expect to be left alone and try telling others what they should be doing. In your flying a kite to baseball example it is possible to share the space, but in Illy it seems more like you are bringing a cricket bat up home plate. I, for lack of a better analogy, have been flying my kite around for a long time on Illy and never had an issue with a baseball team messing it up. I'm glad you have been able to fly your kite for years. A lot of players have been flying their kite freely for years too, but that's only because somebody made some meta-rules about not preying on small players a long time ago. Somebody kept the playground safe from the intimidation by threats of bullying. Somebody "stepped up to the plate" and "hit a home run" and Illyriad is all the better for it. But once you allow intimidation by threats of coercion will you still be able to fly your kite anywhere you wish? Will you be as free then as you are now? I don't think, in the long run, you and your alliance will be. Not because the current crop of users of intimidation by threats of coercion are bad people, but because we just don't know who will join next week. If they arrive and find the tactic acceptable under what circumstances will they decide not to use it? If it's meta-game okay, it's okay, and that is the first step to domination of ALL players, small and large, new and old. If my country were wrong and doing something that I thought had a good chance of putting it on to the path of extinction, and if all it took was not moving but changing political parties, you bet I'd "move." If intimidation by threats of coercion is not harmful to the retention of players, if intimidation by threats of coercion did not, in other games, destroy those games, if intimidation by threats of coercion did not cause unneeded stress of other players, then I would probably not oppose it's use. But it is harmful to the game. It has caused other games to fold. AND it causes unneeded stress to other players. No person is wise who keeps to the company of those who do not care and who only look out for themselves. We are in this game together and to be together we need to work together to insure that the game stays healthy. That is what makes us Illyites and what makes Illyriad different. You describe the player you attacked as one who had "directly insulted, threatened and attacked/thieved/blighted" others. The question is, did the punishment fit the crime? You took up arms and removed the player because of the harm he was doing to others even when he was (I assume) asked to stop. In other words, he was unrepentant. Right? Now here's the thing, did the punishment fit the crime? If he was unrepentant then he could not be corrected. If he could not be corrected AND his actions and attitude were driving others from the game or causing them undo stress, then you had no choice but to take up arms. For it is the responsibility of ALL player of Illyriad to first and foremost keep the game healthy for ALL the players. You, in my opinion, therefore were doing your duty. So why do you think it any less you duty to resist alliances who would like to play with the same unbridled aggressive game play style? You can say they haven't done anything, if you like, but the fact is, they've overtly introduced and are trying to make permanent, a tactic that has destroyed more games than can be listed. They are introducing an "aggressive game play" style which says, "win at any cost" and "winning is dominating everybody." Choosing a play style is a personal thing. I choose the peaceful one because that's what I like. But, as you say, even pacifist sometimes need to take up arms. You say you've been more aggressive in some games, and I don't doubt it. But here's the thing, I would guess that in those games the "aggressive game play" style was already deep-seated and accepted so you really didn't have much choice. Most games are like that. They start out an open sandbox and end up with "domination of the sandbox by any means necessary" the final and only game style really allowed (everybody knows that in general the traders and crafters are considered second class citizens in most games). Illy is different because is has resisted that curve. It has resisted the same path for six years and if we are quite lucky will continue to do so now. Hopefully by persuading those who would steer us to the path of extinction to turn with us away from the domination of the aggressive game play style. But even if you did play that style in a game where other styles were allowed and attempted, do you now think what you did was without effect on others and the game? Do you think that style helped that game be more friendly to more people? If not, then it is you who must make a choice about how you play games in general. You either have to decide that what you do in the game counts because it is being done to real people, or it doesn't and that the friendly and open nature of this sandbox is not worth saving. There are many houses in Illy. Not all of them speak French, but you may think so if you live in a French house. I say move to an English speaking house...one which stands for freedom and the health of the game, and out of the French one which seems to think that domination is the only allowable language in Illyriad. If they kick me back to the newb ring will you call me Galileo? LOL I play a "reverse" card from Sorry. AJ |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 09 Feb 2016 at 18:57
That people who are violent offline and also online is probably is probably a given. But "violent in real life" is a bit miss-leading as their are degrees of violence and most people can be driven to violence in the right circumstances. The question is, is there a relationship between an increase in violent behavior (in all it ranges of display from unkind words to murder) and the duration and amount of online violent video game playing...and again there is a range of "violence" in online games, with "Pet a Bunny" at one in and "Slaughter Everything" at the other. And no doubt there is more "violence" in the game due to the heated exchanges in the forums. It is difficult to deal with "cross rational" behavior as some people don't make clear distinctions between the game and the forums and others' do. It is, in some ways, the same problem. Some want to force me to play the "debate" game I'm playing here, with the rules of the actual game when the actual game was never designed for that...but then again doesn't prevent it either. I wonder if I came to their physical location with a bullhorn at 3am and started my "preaching" if they would appreciate that "cross rational" behavior as well. I doubt it. One of the false distinctions people make here is the distinction between "physical" pain and "emotional" pain. The body doesn't really know the difference and releases the same chemicals in the presence of either to a great degree. Thus, to cause undo pain here is very, very close to my preaching in their driveway at 3am. Once you begin breaking down the false notion of double anonymity and realize you are really having effects on real people, your own sense of fairness and decency begin to exert themselves and you no longer feel so smug using intimidation by threats of coercion and even less about the honor of attacking people for what they say in the forums and with overwhelming forces too. AJ |
Posted By: JodaMyth
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2016 at 03:22
A very large majority of the community views losing your cities during a war to be on the losing side.
Calling nearly the entire player base of the server "losers" is a bad way to make friends. Following your train of thought here the only alliances that willingly took up arms for what they have believed in recent times has been SIN to cure their lack of war boredom and B!B to rid the forums of spam. I'm sure there have been others in the past but that was before our time. Note: I am only 78.4% sure of those reasons for war.
I think it's largely the same groups fighting just with new account/alliance names. Give or take some new players.
No.
Controlling all of BL is highly impractical to even attempt let alone maintain. It can be done through a very large confed but that would take away the point of having any PvP in the game.
You were repeatedly offered a white peace to end your war. There is no one to blame but yourself if you get sent to the noob ring at this point in the game. I think you would have been a long time back if you did not have such a good relationship with B!B leadership before all this began. There is no set precedent for "punishment" on Illy, there is one for actions in wars, and that is keep smashing until one side gives in.
They did that by oppressing other players, is it only right to do when it fits into your idealized style?
Stop trying to oppress players whose style in your eyes is a negative one. People can play how they want so let them or stop saying they can play that way while attempting to rally troops to stop them through threats of coercion using larger alliances.
Early in the HIGH/B!B war you showed a screenshot or something similar of all the players you had invited to come to your aid in order to intimidate Shogun into ending the war. You threatened them with a large alliance that was going to back you up in the fight. PvP is rarely between two willing parties, while you may not be telling them directly they can't you are attempting to get them oppressed for playing the way they want to through your words on here. Some have chosen to ignore your posts, others take the time to read them, some dislike them so much the players avoid the forums. In a way you are affecting their metagame but that is your right to do so.
Yes. If the freedom restrictions you mean are the land claims then they haven't impacted my personal playstyle at all. Aside from the occasional member moving in not knowing about them that I have to deal with. Any time that has happened the player was given time to move out without conflict.
The punishment fitting the crime huh... well we were at war and he was red. I see no moral quandaries there. It actually didn't help much, I still see him sometimes in GC cursing about my alliance  I think your views of their goals and the actual goals may be slightly different. Every alliance has the move they make looked at and interpreted several different ways, it's not my place to speak for them.
I'm too far into your post to read something as long as that paragraph was.
What do you have against the French? I understand your analogy but I think your are assuming and looking too much into one aspect. The French have often spoke of baguettes and how the English speakers can play how they want just not in France. You just need to look beyond the words of le' trolls.
Yes. But only in the way it's sung in Bohemian Rhapsody
I put an X in the top left corner. AJ... you are really pushing the limit of my caring with posts his long. I don't mind back and forth but trim it down some please. |
Posted By: Wartow
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2016 at 17:13
|
I just scrolled to the bottom of Jody's response and it hurted my finger. I agree with his final sentiment... Too long. I await Rikoooooo's deletion of this response. Apathetically yours, Wartow ------------- 
|
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2016 at 21:34
|
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2016 at 23:57
| Please learn how to use the quote tags properly. Your giant posts are impenetrable when you wrap everything as a quote, and sometimes attribute the statement to the wrong person. |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2016 at 00:31
------------- |
Posted By: JodaMyth
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2016 at 01:15
Just be glad it's not directed at you this time... you don't need to try and decipher it to make a comeback.
 |
Posted By: JodaMyth
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2016 at 01:54
No.. I mean.. fairness on browser game forums... are you insane? (That was rhetorical, I will not entertain a discussion on your sanity)
I'm confused about this, I am fairly sure you will be the volleyball player who has started playing basketball in your example since you have declared yourself the winner.
Are you saying that you believe all the alliances are "losers" for not opposing what you oppose just unwilling to admit that direct inference?
I have already admitted that you are a master debater in a previous post, you don't need to tell me this is a good style.
I said SIN and B!B if I remember right, SHARK and Unbow can be included in that too now that I think about it. All those alliances are fighting to support their ideals of Illy or how they want to play on the game. I did not disagree you should try for it, I disagreed with the thought that you are winning or changing minds on here.
The majority of Illyriad is still peaceful, compared to those games you have mentioned I believe it will continue to be. GM SC described Illy as an "ultimate PvP game" once during some talk about CRM. He also said they controlled our actions and peeked under female elves armor (The last part maybe paraphrasing) I believe that the slow speed and mechanics of Illy make it too slow to be a full blown PvP game like LoU was.
No. I just don't really care what happened years ago on Illy.
SINs strength comes from their clustering. Split that in half and it becomes half as effective. While they are doing well in the Newlands war you need to remember there was a long time building up to this and stockpiling items to fight the war. They could not maintain that army size or production speed indefinitely, no alliance can. Ones with alts/sats feeding gold or very good traders possibly could for a long time but it would be exhausting. If you can control the entire server then what are you doing on here? Take command and force us all to play nice.
You aren't a kid.. you're a grown man, I think, please stop comparing yourself to one. You are in a war, albeit a browser game war but war none the less. You can keep your pride but I see no problem with taking more cities if you continue to refuse peace. Illyriad has made it to where both sides need to agree to peace, since you refure this the war will continue.
No, I don't.
Illy has been stagnant for a while for many players, even the ones not involved in the war enjoy reading about it or watching it. Traders are benefiting and I am sure prestige sales are up. Why is this bad?
Is that why Jandras joined HIGH and sent a siege at Rosie and several attacks at B!B during the early days of your war?
Shogun may have the screenshot but I no longer do. If I remember right it was mostly WoT and Stomps members. The peace offer has been there for a long time yet you haven't accepted. I know you feel you are winning and that is fine but they do not need a reason to attack a city at war. To use an idiom from a past game, if it's red it's dead.
Neither is not playing nice and razing your cities so there is no issue here right?
If they are outside my 10 squares I don't care who moves near me. I'm like the State Farm of Illy, a good neighbor
I didn't declare war, I was a victim of circumstance. I didn't drive him from the game only razed his cities. I had several back and forth mails with him each one more volatile on his end. I believe there is no chance of redemption for that player. Erista said I can't attack because we are a training alliance though so I just ignore him.
Why do you hate 3/8ths of yourself?
Thank you, and you do ramble some. You didn't make a move for our game to continue btw so I will assume you drew a "Skip your turn card", I flip a coin and it lands on heads.
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2016 at 14:53
|
"...and you do ramble some." EL OH EL, fer reel! ------------- |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2016 at 20:58
So you believe that one should not expect or even hope for fairness in a browser game? I would suggest that it's either because you have never experienced it and thus don't think it possible, or you think the very nature of browser games like Illyriad means fairness cannot be accomplished. But fairness is a human measure and so we can determine what we think fair and what not. The choice is ours.
The question is: do players have the option to determine what it means to win for themselves? Once I decide to play volleyball the rules of volleyball are applicable to the game I'm playing. You can, of course play basketball, but if you score a huge amounts of points by shooting a huge amount of baskets, you still lose my game. The point being we should both allow each other, as much as possible, to play whatever game we want. The only time it doesn't work is when somebody decides that everybody will play the game they say. I'm for the freedom, as much as possible, of letting each player play the game they wish to play. Which means games of intimidtion against other players and coercion cannot be allowed. For if you allow intimidation and coercion on all players you deny them the opportunity to play the game as they wish, and you do so unnecessarily.
I'm saying that Illyriad will the loser if intimidation by threats of coercion is allowed as a tactic. Thus, those who do not take a stand will be and are loosing a freedom they currently have--the freedom to settle whereever they wish. And the freedom to play in a game free from intimidation by threats of coercion. The freedom to settle is just one of the many things which can be lost if we allow intimidtion by threats of coercion. As a side note: the declaration "you're a loser" is a derogatory term and has nothing to do with the state of the contest. While it is logically fair to say, after a game is over, "you lost" you generally don't say "you're a loser" as the term implies a consistent pattern of loss. So getting me to say that the large alliances are loosers is trying to get me to say something derogatory about them. Nice try, but I'm not biting.
If you check those who respond to my posts most of them are committed to the idea of intimidation by threats of coercion as a positive tactic. Thus, the response to my posts is not a good measure of the number of player convinced. Since we don't have a good way to measure that, I would suggest that my belief is based upon the much better arguments I've made. Better and more clear logic, better evidence, and better quotes...just a few of the things that make arguments work. I believe that most people, when exposed to better reasoning, if they haven't already closed their minds to it, will follow the better reasoned path. I have faith in the players of this game and so, having the better arguments, I conclude that I have convinced some....and maybe most.
First, if the majority of Illyriad is peaceful then that is how they wish to play the game. I do have to wonder how peaceful it will be when one of the current or some new alliance comes who decides that it's not only okay to use intiimdaton by threats of coercion in BL and for land claiming, but also to enforce other new rules: like you don't harvest here, you pay tribute to us, you send your soldiers there and there, you trade only at our hubs....etc.....etc.... Do you guarantee that if the use of intimidation by threats of coercion is allowed that nobody, next month, next year, in five or ten years won't just expand how the tactic is used in the name of the game "evolving?" PVP is "player vs player," it's not "warrior versus trader" or "EPVP:--"Enforced Player vs Player" It's "ultimate" because it allows for a full range of options, including trading, crafting and gathering. It may or may not be, for those who love warfare, the "ultimate" warfare platform exactly because it's a much slower paced playground. Finally, the mechanics may make it slow, but it also means that small players like myself are more vulnerable out in areas where the use of intimidation by threats of coercion are taking hold. One forgets it's not jut the land claimed, but the surrounding land as well that is restricted. It is restricted because there is no reason that the land claiming alliances can't just expand their claim a bit and kick out the small players. It is restricted because if one of those small players speaks up and objects to intimidation by threats of coercion, he or she may actually experience an attempt or two to coerice. Who wants to live next to the State Farm Agent who uses intimidation by threats of coercion to enforce the purchase of insurance?
You should. What happened in Illy years ago has made it the game it is today. The mechanics could be different, but it's the players who make the playground. What happened years ago was unsual in the browser based games, which is why there is a certain sense of "fairness" here that is very, very much absent in other games. I'm just trying to preserve what others have given us.
If I could control the whole server I'd not do as you ask because then I'd be a minority imposing on the player of Illy my views. The minority has only two ethical ways to impose their views on a majority...make their views the view of the majority, or give good enough reason for the majority to allow their view. Using intimidation by threats of coercion is not one of the ways and is, in fact, an anathema to egalitarian based play.
Okay, I'm not a kid....so I'll change the sentence to "if you get into it with a big guy at the local bar and he twists your arm and says, "you give up?" does your not giving up mean that it's your fault if you suffer a broken arm? The point is that the suffering isn't your fault if you resist or not. The blame is on the guy doing the twisting, not the guy giving up or not. I do hope that you can now address the question of who is to blame when threats of coercion turn into actual attempts at coercion. Peace is the absence of war. Peace is when one side gives up or both sides quit fighting. A statement printed in the Illytimes by Shogun No Yari clearly states that there will be peace no matter if I accept the peace offer or not. And for months there was. I didn't launch any attacks, diplo or otherwise, at any BB player in that time. The reason I've been attacked is because individual players in BB have attacked me and BB leadership has allowed them. I call it the undisciplined rogue general excuse. "Oh, we haven't broken the peace, one of our generals has and we have just chosen to ignore it." That wouldn't fly in the real world of countries, and it doesn't fly here.
I didn't find it stagnant at all. I've been here going on 2 years and was very busy my first year and a half and even busier now. If the players don't wish it to be stagnant they can, of course, organize all kinds of PVP war games. Or trading competitions....etc. So if it's "stagnant" it's not because it has to be, but because a lot of players would rather it be so. You can't hve 'peaceful' with out a degree of "stagnant." As for sales being up, I"m not privy to that info. That the game has more wars now may be true and thus, those players may be having more fun, or not. But in the long run will it be advantageous for Illyriad's metagame rules to allow intimidation by threats of coercion, a tactic used and I argue, destroyed, the player base of LoU? And how many players, upon coming to Illyriad find two things true: first that they are welcome and need not fear intimidation by threats of coercion but instead can receive help from other players should such thing occur; and second, that if they are the type of player who uses overt intimidation by threats of coercion against small players, they are not encouraged but sometimes even "removed" if it goes too far. In the long run I'm betting fewer of those non-warrior new players will stick around if we allow intimidtion by threats of coercion but that, due to the slow pace of the game, many of the warriors will leave anyway...as they do now. So it's a negative sum gain. We lose the "aggressive game style" players after a while (but not after they've use some good old intimidation by threats of coercion style play) and we loose the non-warrior class becaue they find Illyriad just like all the other sandbox games out there, dominated by the culture of "aggressive game play."
Nope. I don't like the terms. They don't repay me for the losses I incurred needlessly. They don't reflect the placing of blame where it belongs. And, if I "cry uncle" I just encourage my opponents to believe that the way to win a debate is to punch your opponent. Bloody noses do not win debates and only show that the one punching has left the debate to the other guy... I win, they lose.
What is required in the game is different that what is required to be on the playground with the other players. The game has game mechanics which require the establishment of at least one city and allow for a lot of other things, including robbing newb's, settling right next to other players, insulting people in GC, etc...a lot of "metagame" rules. The reason we have the metarules we have is because the players have decided that some kinds of things are not fair or not advantageous to the community. Thus, "not playing nice" is not allowed in at least two ways by the players. Reading the forums is not required by the game mechanics or the players, but "playing nice' is. I'm just trying to expand the current way to play nice to exclude intimidtion by threats of coercion...a tactic that doesen't even sound nice. The State Farm Agent doesn't knock on our door and use intimidation by threats of coercion to make you buy insurance. If he or she did, that wouldn't be "being a good neighbor," would it? I didn't delcare war either. I didn't declare war or send diplos. The war was planned for months according to Shogun No Yari. He claimed that they stockpiled the necessary resources to sustain the effort. And I believe him. He's a pretty good general. But still, the pretext for war was not there and there was no effort to present any case for it, so the war was unjust and uncalled for. I do not surrender to those who use inimitdation by threats of coercion to get me to sign bogus peace deals. I do not surrender, I keep my word. The other 62.5% of myself is Basque, Native American, African American, Irish, German, English, Mexican and who knows what else...when the thousands of us get together (once every 10 years in SC) it looks like the UN. Good thing I called heads....I place my 6/4 domino on your pile of pixi sticks. AJ |
Posted By: JodaMyth
Date Posted: 15 Feb 2016 at 04:05
I think the mechanics themselves encourage a certain level of unfairness, similar to real life. The players you are connected with, amount of wealth you have or time you invest in the game, competency and understanding of the game, the public perception of you... all these are significant factors on Illy. That alone allows everyone the ability to play how they want, in a sense that is "fair" but also encourages a level of inequality among players.
I would say that is for the community as a whole to decide the same way you feel they should police how players act on the game.
There is a freedom to tell players they can't settle somewhere too. I was not trying to trick you, I was only asking for clarification.
Firstly... it was called ultimate because a player can be razed to nothing, as said in the http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/The-Game-Blog/CRM-in-Gaming-Leveraging-customer-insight-to-improve-their-experience-and-your-bottom-line" rel="nofollow - presentation . PvP encompases both the examples you listed after it, as long as someone is playing the game they can be subject to attacks by other players, unless you decide to hide behind a pretty rainbow. I accept your point about the State Farm Agent, one lives down the street from me and he's kind of a creep.
I should and yet, I don't.
I don't remember saying this 
Can you explain what that means to us common folk?
Obviously in that example it would be the "big guy" but at a point you will need to answer how you got yourself into that position. I doubt there would be no reason for arm twisting, it might not be a good reason but I am sure one exists. The majority of such situations are avoidable, I'm not saying the "big guy" was right in doing so but will not jump to assume innocence on your side.
The difference being this is a game, when our armies die there are is no true impact.
Because you have a war to deal with and rebuttals to write regarding the ethics of wars and the surrounding reasons.
I don't know the sales figures either but I have watched both sides sell a lot more prestige items than were being sold pre war. We could ask for a devs input but it prob wouldn't be the type of thing they would answer even if they weren't busy playing space invaders.
You make a fair and valid point for the war to continue there.
It is a PvP alliance, they are always "preparing for war". I don't know exactly what Sho said but I am nearly certain they weren't preparing with you in mind. Boredom is a good enough excuse to start a war on a game, justification is always secondhand to that imo.
Good for you, then don't complain about attacks continuing either.
I place 2 jacks on top of the jenga tower. I'm not trying to censor you but maybe shorten "Threats of coercion" or change it to something else, it was said so repeatedly here I started to tune it out as I was reading. Thanks ahead of time  |