Smorgasboarding: Pros and Cons

Sorry Stukahh, entirely different thing.  Smorgasbord is a noun.  Smorgasboard is a verb.

Thorgrim wrote: How about Smorgasbored? It is a state of mind.

If you believe the thread is pointless, there is not a need for you to post here.  I think the topic of whether and under what circumstances it is a good idea to attempt to prevent a person from expressing ideas in chat or on the forum through using game mechanics such as diplos, attackes etc., is an interesting and worthwhile topic.

I do agree with Rill.  Let us discuss the relationship between the forum and the "in game" aspect.  If we allow that they are the same thing, as Rikoo seems to think, then there is a price to be paid for saying things others either disagree with or get upset by.  In the end it would seem only those strong enough will be free to express their opinion as the rest may find it just too costly. 

The answer seems to me to be what do you want the forum to be?  If it's an extension of the game then the large alliances should tell us all what we can or cannot say right up front. For me it's not fun to be attacked for what I've said in the forums and it would be just better off if those who want to dominate the forums as well as the game would publish a nice list of my opinions for me. 

On the other hand, if the forums are a place where all players should be allowed to express their opinions (within the bounds of civility I would think), then there must be a general consensus that letting forum disagreements spill over into GC and game action is not healthy for the gaming community.  And if we were to have that I think the forums could be a lot of fun.

So the question revolves on to what purpose the forums are to be put.  As an extension of alliance power and control, or as a free wheeling (more or less) and free discussion of important topics where all members can speak up without fear of in game reprisal.

AJ

In reviewing some of the comments I've missed I find this:

"Are you really proposing that you should get to trash talk however you like, and nobody responds within the confines of the video game? That's just silly. An in-game action is far more reasonable than a lot of your trash talking."

From Brandmeister.

My response is two-fold.

1) First, since the word has been applied to my actions, let's see if my actions were or have been "trash-talking."  We can of course call anything we disagree with by the term, but to do so is to ignore the purpose of language, to communicate.  I could call you a 'racist pig' and make it stick so long as you let me define what "racist pig" means....in this case I would just claim I meant it to mean a "nice guy"...but you wouldn't believe me, would you?  So definitions are not arbitrary things to just throw around and we are not the Cheshire cat who famously said, "A word can mean whatever I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less."  So from the dictionary:  Trash Talk: "insulting or boastful speech intended to demoralize, intimidate, or humiliate someone, especially an opponent in an athletic contest."    Since Brandmeister has decided that some of my comments were "trash talk" do tell me which were of that nature. Which were insulting or boastful statements intended to demoralize, intimidate or humiliate someone? 

2) Second, I've also been accused of slander.  The definition of slander is simple: to knowingly say something that isn't true with the intention of damaging the reputation of another.  The key to understanding it is that the one slandering understands that the evidence of his or her statements does not fully or strongly support the conclusions (meaning that they are jumping to conclusions) and thus the statement may not be true to the point that a reasonable person would not have said it.  Thus, you to slander you must both know what you are saying is not warranted by the evidence (not "proved" but warranted) and you must actually damage the reputation of the other person.  I bring this up because when you say I have engaged in "trash talk" one of the following three things must be true: 1) you have evidence that such is the case and can and will provide it; 2) are mistaken about the term and have miss applied it; or 3) you knew that the statements I've made were not trash-talk but used the term to damage my reputation.  My belief is number 2.  I don't think you would have intentionally used the term if you had understood that what I have done is not "trash talk."  But since terms do have meaning and that meaning is best adjudicated by a dictionary I would suggest that you should produce said evidence or an apology for your understandable mistake.

AJ