Smorgasboarding: Pros and Cons |
Post Reply
|
Page <1234 7> |
| Author | |||||
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 1173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 22:48 |
||||
if i tell a player that harvesting on my sovereignty will be met with a military response, am i intimidating him/her? of course. if i declare my alliance has exclusive harvesting rights at a distance of five or even ten squares from my cities? yes, clearly. i have communicated my expectations with regard to conduct in an area in which i have influence. are my claims reasonable? am i really prepared to risk escalation to enforce my claims? have i the status and resources to do so? the answers to these questions are the very game. you have done this yourself. should i believe the question is intentionally disingenuous, or (alternately) that you draw an ethical distinction between intimidation on occasions you choose versus intimidation by others on different occasions? if it's the latter, then the intimidation seems not to be the issue. i certainly do not see that posting on a forum rather than in igm or chatzy makes much difference to the ethics of the action.
edited for better sentence structure. Edited by Angrim - 16 Jun 2015 at 03:48 |
|||||
![]() |
|||||
ajqtrz
Postmaster
Joined: 24 May 2014 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 500 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 Jun 2015 at 21:11 |
||||
|
In another post I put forth some ideas on why I think it's not desirable to "smorgasbord." For practical reasons and game experience enhancement I believe it is a bad practice.
The question of ethics is a difficult one since there may be a lot of divergent standards and basis of ethical behaviors. I think equal respect of all players is one of the basis of a sound and practical ethic I think, and one to which most, if not all, will agree. So here's my statement on why "smorgasbording" is unethical if we start with equal respect of all players. 1) It is unethical because it shows more respect for large and established players than small ones. If something is said in the forums which is offensive to somebody, I doubt they will attack a large and well connected alliance but they might very well attack an individual player or a small alliance. It's just a pragmatic decision but one which means that those in well established alliances can say more and say it more freely than those not in such alliances. 2) It is unethical if it is done in response to well reasoned and well argued points addressing the subject at hand, (as opposed to personal attacks). Again, it is disrespectful to a player to attack them for what they think and say in the forums if their utterances are civil. 3) If you think respect means civility, there is nothing civil about sending armies to exact something from another player in the game. Thus, if respect means civility, it is unethical. AJ |
|||||
![]() |
|||||
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 Jun 2015 at 19:43 |
||||
|
I believe it is ethical.
I also believe the effectiveness varies greatly, depending on how strongly that person feels about the issue, how sensitive a person is to in-game damage (thieves, sieges, etc.), and how likely they perceive that damage to be. Much attention has been given to the last category, in that large, powerful alliances can provide considerable protection (or put forth meaningful menace). But other factors like popularity can also provide an effective shield. Durc, for example, issued the occasional scathing critique of powerful alliances, from tiny CAVE, but I don't think anyone would have dared to menace her into silence. She was too well liked by too many powerful players for that to work. There are also many players who just aren't that afraid of city, troop, or inventory damage. Some others just feel so strongly that they cannot hold their silence. Presumably for others, the tactic would work. |
|||||
![]() |
|||||
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 Jun 2015 at 19:21 |
||||
|
Illy subcontracts out forum administration, iirc. However, whether a forum is administered by Illy or someone else, even a facebook group or whatever, the purpose of this thread is to discuss using game mechanics to try to influence speech. I am interested in questions like do people believe this is ethical and do they think it is effective.
Angrim, it seems that you believe this to be ethical -- do you also see it as being effective?
|
|||||
![]() |
|||||
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 1173 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 Jun 2015 at 18:51 |
||||
|
|||||
![]() |
|||||
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 Jun 2015 at 00:13 |
||||
|
The introduction of a new term, tongue in cheek, was intended to remove a previous term that already comes laden with meaning. As you commented, Angrim, the invocation of that term tends to bring with it a lot of excess baggage.
The goal of this thread is to discuss the act of using game mechanics to attempt to influence speech, in the forum, in global chat, or in other venues. Specifically, is this an effective strategy? Under what circumstances should it be employed? Etc. I think Angrim has illustrated some of the dangers of smorgasboarding as defined, to wit, that players may not take kindly to such actions -- even players with broadly divergent viewpoints.
|
|||||
![]() |
|||||
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 1173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 Jun 2015 at 00:05 |
||||
|
no idea what sparked all this, but creating a new word for it seems a silly stunt to me. i sympathise with Llannedd, but i don't quite agree. i have a slightly different definition of "bullying" which i learnt here in the forum:
bullying (n): any interaction intended to influence another player and which the speaker finds offensive or undesirable, often implying that the target is overmatched. so when H? published its 10-square rule, players who wanted to settle closer felt it was bullying. and when TCol made land claims in Mal Motsha and Keshalia, players who had designs on those areas felt it was bullying. and when a certain alliance of my acquaintance was told it should expect incoming sieges if it named itself a certain way, some of us felt it was bullying. and when said alliance attempted to convince its neighbours to respect crow markers, some of them felt it was bullying. and when NC started choosing unexpected targets for its recreational wars, alliances that saw themselves or their friends as potential targets saw it as bullying. and when a group of alliances joined forces to (among other things) put an end to NC's activities, NC itself saw it as bullying. it's an emotionally charged word that tries to put the other side of an argument on the defensive. it says, as i have said before, much more about the player using it than about the cause s/he finds offensive. calling something "bullying" is an attempt to short-circuit the entire discussion of whether or not a particular use of power is right or wrong and go directly to the emotional outrage. i don't know what precipitated all this, and i've very little interest in learning, but i've spent enough time in the game to be suspicious of anyone who wants to start a discussion with a conclusion. Edited by Angrim - 09 Jun 2015 at 00:07 |
|||||
![]() |
|||||
GM Rikoo
Moderator Group
Community & PR Manager Joined: 28 Mar 2014 Location: Mars Status: Offline Points: 1233 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jun 2015 at 21:48 |
||||
|
So, use the term bullying. I didn't say you had to use something else.
But, as with many other words, I want you to make sure you are using the appropriate form when coming to me to ask for help. If you only saw the IGMs I do... :) I am not sure why this definition has needed such a discussion, but hey, if you feel the need go for it. Just let me know if you have any questions about rules/mechanics, etc. Rikoo |
|||||
|
Illyriad Community Manager / Public Relations / community@illyriad.co.uk
|
|||||
![]() |
|||||
ajqtrz
Postmaster
Joined: 24 May 2014 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 500 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jun 2015 at 21:42 |
||||
|
I keep using a
particular definition of "bullying" that describes it as "intimidation,
threats and coercion." That is my denotative definition. However, the
term also has a "conotative" definition which might be defined thus: "acting like a uncaring and uncouth person while
intimidating, threatening and physically abusing others to get what you
want." See the difference? If you are one who insists that what is
going on in the game cannot be called "bullying" you may be right if we
use the connotative definition since that includes a moral judgment
which the denotative one only implies. If you are one who is
"intimidating, threatening, and coercing" within the game you may not
wish to also be called one who is "morally suspect." So you reject the
term. I can understand that, and I think Rill, in her discussion of
Smorgasbording, is on a track to substitute a more neutral term for
using the force of the in game mechanics to influence or control the
speech in the forum.
But, ultimately, I think the effort may be more of a disservice than helpful. (Sorry Rill). Here's why: I was listening to a lecture the other day on Facebook's recent crack down on some pretty nasty trolls. Nobody disputes that what these people do is bullying because it is very pervasive and consistent. That's why, Facebook, in an effort to make their product more enjoyable to more people, has decided that it will no longer be the "wild west" of social communication, but will move against trolls. The speaker applauded this decision by Facebook, as do I. I applaud it because when it comes to communication, if it isn't civil, it isn't pleasant and an enjoyable time should be available to all players. But Facebook had to first come to the place where they understood that the behaviors of the trolls were damaging to their product. Now I'm not saying that the actions of players are on the level of those trolls....see how careful I am to disclaim the equating of what I am saying to what Facebook claims about their trolls?....but I am saying we should not be afraid to recognize the behaviors do fit the definition AND more importantly, to recognize that such behaviors will either mean nobody challenges the land claims (making the game less flexible for new players and smaller alliances) or will be perceived by those who are "removed" as bullying. The problem is, if we call it "smorgasbording" we do a dis-service by using a euphemism to avoid portraying ourselves as morally suspect. But we should be willing, I think, to call what something is by it's proper name AND to accept the moral implications of the connotations attached to that name. If we do, it may be that we see the importance of changing our behaviors. Beneath our desire to restrict "bullying" to the "real world" and to insist that it must somehow impact that world is the false notion that there is a big barrier between the player and his or her avatar. The same psychologist Iheard on NPR last week, who studies online identification and communication, noted that the reason people will engage in trolling behaviors is that they think not that THEY are anonymous, but that the person upon whom they inflict their ire is anonymous to them. In other words, because they think they are speaking to an avatar and not to a human being, they do not monitor their words and thus overstep the bounds of social responsibility. It think a similar thing occurs in Illy when players insist "it's just a game" or that "it's a war game" as if therefore, they are only dealing with some avatar and not a real human being. Think for a minute of the difference between a sport like soccer and a game like Illy. Two teams meeting on the field brings people into direct contact with each other. They play the game, and if emotions follow, all players know that it was and is a real person feeling those emotions. In Illy the avatars have no emotional response. If they were left to themselves they would do exactly nothing. They wouldn't build cities. They wouldn't react to being attacked. They wouldn't feel elation, disappointment, joy, humor or anything. It's not the avatar, it's the human. And that human isn't feeling "imaginary" emotions, but real emotions. When a person is attacked in Illy, especially when they have done nothing to provoke the attack (or feel like they haven't) they react. When a person writes something in the forums that another finds offensive, the one offended isn't the avatar, it's a real person and they feel the anger. Thus, while it may be a "game" it's not "just a game." This from: NoBullying, a website dedicated to the eradication of bullying: “Griefers” is the term given to those who make use of online games as a way to target [children and sometimes] adults while they are taking part in online gaming. These players will purposely seek out other gamers and target them in the game. Not only will they attack these players as part of the game, they will also engage in aggressive behavior outside the parameters of the game, including sending threatening or harassing messages. Some of these griefers will use the excuse of simply “playing the game,” while really using the game as a way to cyber bully other players. " Now the current behaviors of the players in Illy certainly fall short of this. But if you allow for the two parts of this to occur: the in game attacks AND the out of game (forums, for instance) aggression, isn't it just a matter of time? If two persons engage in the similar actions regarding another, how are we to tell who is "just playing the game" and who is actually "bullying?" To the "victim" it probably all the same. One of the reasons I think we should call bullying, "bullying" is that to do less is to minimize the reality we face that some players are and have been bullied out of the game AND the type of behaviors they have done are the same kind and degree inherent in any activity which "intimidate, threatens and coerces" another player. As Shakepheare may have written would he have been present, "Bullying by any other name is still as putrid." In summary, I think we should use the term "bullying" because the behaviors match the definition, to do otherwise allows those who feel morally squeamish about the term off the hook, the behaviors are the same whether the person intends to bully or not, and using any other term will allow real bullies to hide behind a euphemism. In the end, if you don't like the term, get on the bandwagon to stop the behaviors. AJ |
|||||
![]() |
|||||
ajqtrz
Postmaster
Joined: 24 May 2014 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 500 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 17:52 |
||||
|
If a player is active in the forums we know one thing about them: they enjoy speaking or feel passionate enough about something to speak out. It therefore stands to reason that if they quit speaking they have done so because of a change in their circumstances...either in game or in real life.
Now if the change is in the game then it would be a strong correlation if they quit speaking right after they suffered some major defeat. And if that defeat were at the hands of some person or alliance they "offended" then, while not proof, it would be a reasonable conclusion. Furthermore, if they are the speaking type it is unlikely they will be silent. If they feel they were punished because of their voice in the forums or GC they wouldn't hesitate to say so. My own experience has taught me that they might even over-state the case...LOL. Thus, I do think we would hear about it. And I do think we have heard about it on occasion. The most telling proof of this is when a person "rage quits" because of the actions of his or her "enemies." I know of at least one player driven from the game by a group of players over comments made in GC. I looked carefully at the comments and tried to get both parties to understand that what was said being interpreted in two different ways, both withing the scope of the words used. I recommended they let it go and thought I had an agreement from both of them to do so. But then one side went ahead and hounded the other person out of the game. Of course, since it was in the game Rikoo has decided we can't call it....... LOL ...it was "smorgasbording." I think, therefore, Rill is correct that it occurs. And I do think the reputation of the one who drove the player out of the game was damaged. But time heals all wounds and those who remain in the game alone can repair their reputations. Those who leave are lost. As for the person who "has no concern for their cities," I'm not sure of whom Brandmesiter is speaking. My sense is that almost everybody, unless they are about to leave the game, has some concern for their cities. But what I think you are actually saying Brandmeister, is, "if you aren't big enough to defend your cities against an attack provoked by something you say in GC or the forums, don't speak if you care about your cities." By this we, of course, are telling the smaller players they risk reprisal if they say something disagreeable to some big player or alliance. I do think that this attitude is unwelcoming to smaller players who, I think, should be represented at the table of discussion. Thus, if it becomes known and understood that reprisal is acceptable then the forums suffer fewer participants (forget the ones who have suffered and think for a moment of all the ones who may speak up but think better of it as they can't withstand the reprisal of saying something controversial). You want a healthy game? You have to have a healthy discussion of the game. You won't have that if are telling people they aren't allowed to speak until they are big enough to defend their words with their armies. AJ |
|||||
![]() |
|||||
Post Reply
|
Page <1234 7> |
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |