Meta Discussion

Shutting down the thread. Repeated topics that we have covered in other threads.

Malek wrote: ajqtrz wrote:  Don't be shy, lay out your logic and definitions and show me how I'm in error.  Either that or be consistent and honest and change you mind and agree with me.  Come on, it won't hurt too much. AJ   Now you are just belittling people.

more than that, he's set up the false dilemma again. either we must convince him or we are wrong and must change our minds. and as he glosses over the challenging questions being asked of him, he will not be persuaded, and so, by being unwaveringly dogmatic, he "wins". i think this is a far more serious theft of rights than anything that's been done in game. i am fairly sure players can think what they like without having to answer to ajqtrz for it or justify their positions to him.

ajqtrz wrote: If the players of Illy are real people how OUGHT they be treated?

no one has answered because the question is meaninglessly broad and without context. how ought one treat a real person at all? now we have the entirety of religion and philosophy to discuss, as humanity has been trying to answer that question for more or less its entire existence. what i suspect you want is the tautological "like real people". but that answer doesn't actually help anything, because ILLYRIAD IS A GAME. the players of poker are real people, which doesn't stop one from taking the other players' money when one wins. are the other players upset by the loss? perhaps. is winning poker, then, tantamount to robbery? to assault? is it indistinguishable from a fistfight over the result because the loss of all that money causes the players (emotional) pain? law certainly doesn't equate the two. if the game is played online where a fistfight is no longer convenient, does that change the morality of winning? i think not.

some players spend real money and all spend real time in illyriad building their digital empires. when they suffer reverses, things don't go as planned, they encounter resistance, some of those assets will be lost. this is all the "fault" of other players; there is no other agency. but that is the nature of the sandbox. it is a risk, a gamble...and as in other gambling games, do not bet what you cannot bear to lose. a gambler who cannot obey that maxim is not being victimised by anyone but him/herself.

so my answer is this: If the players of Illy are real people, they ought to be allowed to play a game as a game, within the rules and otherwise according to their own consciences, without being shamed because another player is not mature enough to manage his/her own wager.

your misaligned metaphors are all in the service, not of a better discussion, but of channeling readers toward the answer you have ordained for them. shame on you for using only the trappings of logic rather than the substance of it.

Again, if you are being bullied, tell GM Rikoo about it.

Jane DarkMagic wrote: No one is bullying you.  Your entire definition of bullying is completely wrong.  If a player sieges you because he dislikes your position on land claims, this is not bullying.  It is merely another mechanism for debate that the game allows.  No one has made any physical threats against you, and your comparisons are minimizing the experiences of those people in the world who have legitimately been bullied.

Okay, back to square 1.  The definition of "bullying" contains: the use of intimidation, threats and coercion to get ones own way.

Do land claims intimidate:  When you say "I will remove you if you do what I don't want you to do" that's intimidation.  If you disagree please do more than say, "that's wrong."  "he said, she said" responses nothing to propel he argument forward...but maybe you don't want the argument to progress because you do not wish to admit where it's going to logically lead?

Do land claims threaten:  If you don't stay out of our area we will "remove" you.  Pretty clear to me.  But in case it's too much, here's an explanation:  The "threat"is in the action the person says they will do if you don't act as they wish.  The threat is the "removal."  The action they wish you to take is to stay out of their territory.  I hope this clarifies the situation for you, Jane, because you have yet to actually deal with the question "are land claims a form of bullying.  Instead you keep repeating "is not!" like a juvenile might do.

And, Do land claims coerce?  Not yet, that I know of.  But if they haven't yet, one supposes they will only because to issue a threat and then not follow through is to be a paper tiger.  So do lay out the logic for the readers as to how you get from "If you settle here we will remove you" to "that's not bullying."  I've laid out pretty clearly why I think it IS bullying.  Your job would be, in a civil and courageous debate, to actually lay out specifically why the definition doesn't fit as I put it.

That I don't understand the "meta-game" of Illy is silly.  I understand it fine, thank you.  I understand that some people want to play the bully.  Some people want to pretend that what they do doesn't hurt anybody, doesn't affect the real people behind the avatars, or worse, that if it does, that's just tough luck.  That is how it IS.  I keep asking you to answer how it OUGHT to be if the players of Illy are real people.  You do know the difference between IS and OUGHT don't you?

Most people live lives, I think, in which they "go along to get along."  They don't rock the boat out of fear that their involvement in the affairs of their social world, if they disagree with how that world acts and is run, will cost them.  I can attest that to do what I'm doing is not for the feint of heart.  My goal, Jane, is to CHANGE the meta-game.  I am attempting to change it in two ways.  First to stop the bullying.  Second, to give freedom of expression to all players of illy in the forums and GC.  People keep saying that if somebody says what they don't like in GC that person has to suffer the consequences in the actual game.  Why?  Why should I, if I say I like vanilla and you don't like the fact that I like vanilla, suffer for my view?  If I express it civilly what motivates you to think yourself justified to send armies at my cities?  There is no logic that says (outside of slander) that I have any logical reason to try to answer an intellectual question with force.  It's considered inappropriate in just about every philosophy and religion in the history of the world yet there are still people who apparently can't make the distinction.  It boggles the mind.

And the fact that it's a game doesn't make any difference as the bullying is not required by the game mechanics and is the bullying of real people.  Prove either of these statements wrong if you can.

So if you think the meta-game subservient to the actual game, then take the challenge and engage in this part of the meta-game by actually answering the question: "If the players of Illy are real people how OUGHT they be treated?"  Don't be shy, lay out your logic and definitions and show me how I'm in error.  Either that or be consistent and honest and change you mind and agree with me.  Come on, it won't hurt too much.

AJ
 

ajqtrz wrote: Bullying is not a game mechanic nor a recognized strategy in any game...

demonstrably false. clearly, ajqtrz has not played many old style wargames. Diplomacy comes immediately to mind.
 

ajqtrz wrote: And Princess Botchface, you have accused me of sophistry and stated that you "can hardly stand to do more than skim your windy false equivalencies" but you don't take the time to refute them?

it's hardly worth the time. you respond to refutation by disputing the terminology, which can be done ad infinitum (and, more quickly, ad absurdum).

ajqtrz wrote: A bunch of real people around a board game.  They are playing a game of spaces and one person declares that, "from now on none of you can land on that space or I'll make it my job to run you out of the game."  Some people, and perhaps you, will see it as perfectly acceptable.  But here's the problem: it's intimidation by threats of coercion.  The game says all players can land on that space.  The game determines what can and cannot be done.

the game also says that a player can be attacked for doing so. furthermore, the game says (or recognises, at the least) that players can communicate with one another, share intentions, cooperate and conflict. at what point do you go from seeing what the game allows as the definition of "good" to seeing it as the definition of "evil"? your positions are conveniently malleable.

ajqtrz wrote: The players use of intimidation by threatening coercion to keep people off that space is using social means to influence in-game results.  The game does not mention such behaviors.  It does not say, "claim as many spaces as you can and intimidate by threats of coercion" if you can.  It's part of what Jane calls the "meta-game."  Right?

the game provides igm, pm, and a forum to facilitate communication between players. the game does not endorse particular strategies. that does not set strategy "outside the game". where table talk is viewed as "outside the game", games like poker take steps to forbid it.

ajqtrz wrote: Why do you think all those players are sitting around that giant board?  To have fun?...When he engaged in a behavior that clearly gives him an advantage over others (assuming the space has some advantage to him) we know he is using bullying to win the game.  Now using bullying (intimidation by threats of (in game) coercion) without getting agreement by the social group, he was not respecting (or even concerning himself with respecting) the wishes they might have.

erm...so gaining advantage is bullying? is there a context in which you do not see competitive games as inherently immoral? (note: illyriad is intended to be a competitive game, in the sense that players vie for limited resources.) do you also see hunting in illy as immoral, because once i have killed the quarry i have denied others the privilege of doing so? settlement, because i have denied that space to all others? occupation of mines and herb patches? where does this expansive definition of bullying end?

ajqtrz wrote: Let's turn to Illy.  Are there many people playing Illy?  Yep.  Are they, generally speaking, sitting?  Yep.

ah. perhaps if we all stand up we can exercise our freedom of action without fear of transgressing your moral convictions.  ;)

ajqtrz wrote: But don't take my word for it.  The designers of most games, especially mmorg's put a lot of effort into making the game as pleasant as possible.  Most games have strict rules governing how players interact.

yes. this is largely why i play illy and not other mmorpg's. one's ability to influence the game world is brought to naught in those games because players cannot be allowed to interact except in ways that do not actually matter. have you, perhaps, educated yourself on the topic of EVE Online, the game which inspired illy? i think not.

ajqtrz wrote: ...(way too much text to quote, but it's right up there)...

so, in a nutshell:

• people play games and people have avatars, so avatars are people
• the game is a group event; any individual action in a group event abridges the rights of all others
• emotional pain and physical pain activate the same area of the brain, so pain is pain
• pain is felt in proportion to emotional investment, and illy requires a great investment of time

therefore

• causing any player a major loss in illy causes them great pain and is morally equivalent to assault
  

i'll let Princess Botchface speak for herself on the matter, but there are a couple of dubious equivalencies there in the bullet list to focus on with somewhat less text to parse.

on a personal note, i think the argument is plainly ridiculous, which is why i don't care to pursue it any further, nor do i think it represents the position of Stomp, et al...which means it has very little impact on illyriad overall. (i am, however, looking into a standing desk just in case.)


Edited by Angrim - 18 Jul 2015 at 00:47