| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
JodaMyth 
Greenhorn
Joined: 29 Jul 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 62
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote  Reply
 Posted: 10 Feb 2016 at 03:22 |
 ajqtrz wrote:
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. |
A very large majority of the community views losing your cities during a war to be on the losing side.
ajqtrz wrote:
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? 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."
|
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
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.
|
I think it's largely the same groups fighting just with new account/alliance names. Give or take some new players.
ajqtrz wrote:
Let's turn back to the history of this game again.
|
No.
ajqtrz wrote:
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? It's a bit like a disease in that once you let it become okay it spreads.
|
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
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?
|
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
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).
|
They did that by oppressing other players, is it only right to do when it fits into your idealized style?
ajqtrz wrote:
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.
|
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
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.
|
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
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?
|
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
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? 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."
|
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
Choosing ~~~~~saving.
|
I'm too far into your post to read something as long as that paragraph was.
ajqtrz wrote:
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.
|
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
If they kick me back to the newb ring will you call me Galileo? LOL
|
Yes. But only in the way it's sung in Bohemian Rhapsody
ajqtrz wrote:
I play a "reverse" card from Sorry.
AJ
|
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.
Edited by JodaMyth - 10 Feb 2016 at 03:33
|
 |
Wartow
Postmaster
Joined: 20 May 2014
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 870
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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
|
|
|
|
ajqtrz
Postmaster
Joined: 24 May 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 500
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 Feb 2016 at 21:34 |
ajqtrz wrote:
JodaMyth wrote:
ajqtrz wrote:
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. |
A very large majority of the community views losing your cities during a war to be on the losing side. |
And they have the right to do so. But their view isn't the only one I hope we allow. If I was playing a war game then losing my cities would be losing. But since I'm not, it's irrelevant. People insist on judging my performance by their standards but have a hard time allowing me to judge theirs by mine? Let's be fair here. By MY standards they have already lost. I count logical arguments and evidence and by my count I've far outstripped their arguments in evidence and logic. Thus, I'm the "winner" here. And since it is I who get to decide what it means to win for me, "I WIN!" If you playing volleyball and can't keep up with your opponent you can't declare yourself the winner by insisting you were playing basketball and then shooting some baskets. The two are two different games and those who take cities instead of make good solid debate points are the losers of the debate.
|
ajqtrz wrote:
JodaMyth wrote:
ajqtrz wrote:
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? 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." |
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. |
"Ask if...."is a conditional where the reader is invited to examine a statement and come to his or her own conclusion. And while it does imply that the writer believes it to be true, it does not actually make that claim. It is an invitation to examine a point of view, not a claim that it is true. "The large alliances aren't willing to take a stand" is a declarative sentence. And if I wished to say that, I would have said it. Then I would have backed it up with sound evidence and logic. But I didn't say that because I want the reader to figure out what he or she thought for themselves, and yes, I do imply the conclusion to which I think the evidence points. That's just good debating style.
In the end though, I don't understand your criticism because in the very next sentence you agree with what you thought I said. You claim that SIN is the only alliance willing to take up arms for what they believe. I assume you looked at the evidence and decided the large alliances don't care about what they believe enough to do anything about it.
If by spam you mean long posts, really? They don't like the quantity of my verbiage? I think it has to be something more than that!
And I read that 86.5% of statistics used in debate are made up on the spot.....including this one. lol
|
ajqtrz wrote:
JodaMyth wrote:
ajqtrz wrote:
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. |
I think it's largely the same groups fighting just with new account/alliance names. Give or take some new players.
|
It may be the same players but they are bringing the same style of play that ruined LoU to this arena. It always amazes me that aggressive style players come to sandboxes when there are plenty of games out there specifically styled to their style of play. There are very few moderate sandbox games that allow for PVP and taking any of them and forcing people to deal with the "aggressive game play" ruins the few that there are.
|
ajqtrz wrote:
JodaMyth wrote:
ajqtrz wrote:
Let's turn back to the history of this game again. |
No. |
Are you saying that you think it was a mistake to have stood against intimidation by threats of coercion in the early day of the game then? Do you think it's okay to "farm" new and small players? "No" is nice, but what is your vision of the game? Is it anything goes?
|
ajqtrz wrote:
JodaMyth wrote:
ajqtrz wrote:
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? It's a bit like a disease in that once you let it become okay it spreads.
|
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.
|
I could control all Illyriad with the proper techniques. First, three alliances with two clusters each could pretty much control both continents. Remember, you don't have to actually coerce anyone if you are large enough to intimidate. Look at SIN. 42 members and they are so organized and disciplines that they could certainly, with just one other cluster on the west side, probably intimidate anybody currently on that west side (and are in fact doing so in my opinion). Intimidation by threats of coercion on any playground is is a very powerful tool if you are a big and strong.....uh.....alliance. ;>)
|
ajqtrz wrote:
JodaMyth wrote:
ajqtrz wrote:
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, it's if what was said justified the 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?
|
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.
|
On the playgrounds of life there are always people who will twist your arm and tell you that they will stop when you cry "uncle." Is that justice? Do you say to the kid, "it's your fault, you could have just cried "uncle?" As a matter of principle I don't cry uncle and offering me the opportunity is not only a waste of time, it's disingenuous. If an alliance attacks unjustly they should be the ones apologizing and paying reparations, not the victim of their aggression.
But beneath your point of view is the same question I've been asking. Are we humans present in the game, and if so, are there limits to the harm we can do to each other? Let's say we set up a PVP match. Do I have the right as a player to take you out? If in our play you lose four of your ten cities to none of my own, is it fair for me to keep taking your cities? In other words, do you get to keep hitting somebody once you've brought them to the mat? In most games it's considered unsportsmanlike to do so. And I think that most players would agree that you CAN go to far in your punishment. You can punish unjustly. You can punish too much. If we are present, and we are, we need to bring to the game a sense of fair play because if the game isn't fair, it isn't fun. It is not fair to punish the volleyball player by pretending he's playing basketball and acting as if you won the volleyball game because you sink more baskets than he. Give the guy his due and he'll give you yours.
I've openly and on several occasions praised SIN and their warrior abilities. If they win a battle they win. But that fight should be limited to that arena. And the fight over the ideas of using intimidation by threats of coercion should not be fought on the battlefields if we can avoid it, because the real issue is not about armies but about how much we value the community of which we are a part.
|
ajqtrz wrote:
JodaMyth wrote:
ajqtrz wrote:
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).
|
They did that by oppressing other players, is it only right to do when it fits into your idealized style? |
The history says that they started oppressing other players and THEN alliances like DLords stood up and said that the "aggressive game play" style would not be allowed. In other words the players, by force of arms, rejected a tactic brought into the game by a minority. The game belongs to the players and they have the final word. That is the nature of communities in that the parts of the community do not get to decide for the community.
You do need to read carefully what I've said. I believe that the community of players is the sovereign of the game, not any individual or sub-group. I believe that when a sub-group adopts a tactic that is unhealthy it is up the community at large to resist that tactic for the good of the game. I believe that the current users of the tactic of intimidation by threats of coercion are good people, but miss-guided. I've spent the last few months slowly moving them from their initial stance. They have given more ground than they realize and I will continue to press the matter until they are forced by the arguments to understand they must drop the tactic in favor of a better future for all of us. I do not want war. I suspect they do not want war and don't expect there to be a war.
|
ajqtrz wrote:
JodaMyth wrote:
ajqtrz wrote:
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.
|
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. |
I'd like to see that screen shot because I don't remember doing anything of the sort. It would be highly unlike me. Are you sure it came from me?
The recent resurgence of attacks on my cities came about because one player heard I was amassing armies with with to take on BB. But, obviously, I wasn't. I never intended to do so. Where he got that information, I do not know. One person suggested my insistence on B!B surrender to me (in the Illy Times) could be interpreted in that manner, but that was months ago.
In addition, there have been claims that I've sent out diplo attacks (one player said I was 'no angel' in the matter) But, in fact, I've never sent out diplo attacks except to players in whom I was engaged in an active war. After the initial fight with B!B I sent no diplo attacks at anybody. None.
So where are these things coming from? I wish I knew.
Oppression is not resisting the establishment of a new right, it is the removal of one already in existence. The right to intimidate by threats of coercion is the right they are attempting to establish. Thus, it is impossible for them to be oppressed. It is possible, though, for them to become the oppressors. Once you allow them to intimidate by threats of coercion, they become the oppressors.
So they are ignoring the forums altogether? Are there not other posters? Are their no threads in which I'm not taking part? Seems to me like, if they are doing that, they are throwing out the baby with the bath-water. It would one thing if reading my posts was a required activity of the game...but the last time I check nobody is required to do so.
As for liking or disliking my posts, there is some personal taste issues at play certainly. But there might also be a desire to flee from the logic of what I'm saying. Sadly, it has been my experience, that most people play to their strengths and the minute they start getting beat in one arena they try to move the battle to one in which they have the upper hand. Sort of like a boxer who, getting pretty soundly pummeled, decides to wrestle instead of box. Any competent referee would declare the other boxer the winner and call the match. In Illy some people aren't being good referees I think.
|
ajqtrz wrote:
JodaMyth wrote:
ajqtrz wrote:
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?
|
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.
|
I don't mean the land claims. I mean the method of enforcement. If some alliance decides to move close to you and they are allowed to intimidate you by threats of coercion, will impact your play style? If they say to you, "move" will you move? If they say, "send your armies here or there on our behalf" will that impact your play style? If they say, "you will join us or be removed" will that be enough? I would suggest you would say yes. But of course, then it would be too late and the freedom to fly your kite will be gone. At that point they can hand you a baseball bat and say, "you're playing baseball." At that point you will step up to their plate to play or leave the playground for good.
|
ajqtrz wrote:
JodaMyth wrote:
ajqtrz wrote:
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? 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."
|
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.
|
Being at war is usually the result of a perception of a crime having been done...not always, but very often. Now if the player had changed his ways, apologized, and refrained from repeating the offense, would you still have driven him from the game? If not, why not? Because the punishment should fit the crime. The purpose of punishment is rehabilitation for if it isn't then it's just a crime committed against a criminal.
|
ajqtrz wrote:
JodaMyth wrote:
ajqtrz wrote:
Choosing ~~~~~saving.
|
I'm too far into your post to read something as long as that paragraph was.
|
Dang! And that was some of my best writing...(he says without going back to review what he said...LOL)
|
ajqtrz wrote:
JodaMyth wrote:
ajqtrz wrote:
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.
|
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.
|
I'm about 3/8 French. My family came from southern France in the 1600's. Nothing against them, but as Mark Twain famously said, "Them French aren't so smart, they can't even speak English" LOL
|
ajqtrz wrote:
JodaMyth wrote:
If they kick me back to the newb ring will you call me Galileo? LOL
|
Yes. But only in the way it's sung in Bohemian Rhapsody
|
ajqtrz wrote:
JodaMyth wrote:
I play a "reverse" card from Sorry.
AJ
|
I put an X in the top left corner. |
JodaMyth wrote:
ajqtrz wrote:
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.
|
I've trimmed 1/3 of this. Hope it helps. Besides, it's not like I'm just rambling....am I?
|
Edited by ajqtrz - 10 Feb 2016 at 23:19
|
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 Feb 2016 at 00:31 |
Brandmeister wrote:
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. |
I'm sure you are wrong and ajqtrz will surely show you how in a 12 foot post very soon. |
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
|
JodaMyth
Greenhorn
Joined: 29 Jul 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 62
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 Feb 2016 at 01:15 |
abstractdream wrote:
Brandmeister wrote:
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. |
I'm sure you are wrong and ajqtrz will surely show you how in a 12 foot post very soon. |
|
Just be glad it's not directed at you this time... you don't need to try and decipher it to make a comeback. 
|
|
JodaMyth
Greenhorn
Joined: 29 Jul 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 62
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 Feb 2016 at 01:54 |
ajqtrz wrote:
Let's be fair here. |
No.. I mean.. fairness on browser game forums... are you insane? (That was rhetorical, I will not entertain a discussion on your sanity)
ajqtrz wrote:
By MY standards they have already lost. Thus, I'm the "winner" here. And since it is I who get to decide what it means to win for me, "I WIN!" If you playing volleyball and can't keep up with your opponent you can't declare yourself the winner by insisting you were playing basketball and then shooting some baskets.
|
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
"Ask if...."is a conditional where the reader is invited to examine a statement and come to his or her own conclusion. And while it does imply that the writer believes it to be true, it does not actually make that claim. |
Are you saying that you believe all the alliances are "losers" for not opposing what you oppose just unwilling to admit that direct inference?
ajqtrz wrote:
That's just good debating style. |
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
In the end though, I don't understand your criticism because in the very next sentence you agree with what you thought I said. You claim that SIN is the only alliance willing to take up arms for what they believe. I assume you looked at the evidence and decided the large alliances don't care about what they believe enough to do anything about it.
If by spam you mean long posts, really? They don't like the quantity of my verbiage? I think it has to be something more than that!
And I read that 86.5% of statistics used in debate are made up on the spot.....including this one. lol
|
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
It may be the same players but they are bringing the same style of play that ruined LoU to this arena. It always amazes me that aggressive style players come to sandboxes when there are plenty of games out there specifically styled to their style of play. There are very few moderate sandbox games that allow for PVP and taking any of them and forcing people to deal with the "aggressive game play" ruins the few that there are.
|
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
Are you saying that you think it was a mistake to have stood against intimidation by threats of coercion in the early day of the game then? Do you think it's okay to "farm" new and small players? "No" is nice, but what is your vision of the game? Is it anything goes?
|
No. I just don't really care what happened years ago on Illy.
ajqtrz wrote:
I could control all Illyriad with the proper techniques. First, three alliances with two clusters each could pretty much control both continents. Remember, you don't have to actually coerce anyone if you are large enough to intimidate. Look at SIN. 42 members and they are so organized and disciplines that they could certainly, with just one other cluster on the west side, probably intimidate anybody currently on that west side (and are in fact doing so in my opinion). Intimidation by threats of coercion on any playground is is a very powerful tool if you are a big and strong.....uh.....alliance. ;>)
|
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
On the playgrounds of life there are always people who will twist your arm and tell you that they will stop when you cry "uncle." Is that justice? Do you say to the kid, "it's your fault, you could have just cried "uncle?"
But beneath your point of view is the same question I've been asking. Are we humans present in the game, and if so, are there limits to the harm we can do to each other? Let's say we set up a PVP match. Do I have the right as a player to take you out? If in our play you lose four of your ten cities to none of my own, is it fair for me to keep taking your cities? In other words, do you get to keep hitting somebody once you've brought them to the mat? In most games it's considered unsportsmanlike to do so.
|
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
You do need to read carefully what I've said. |
No, I don't.
ajqtrz wrote:
I believe that the community of players is the sovereign of the game, not any individual or sub-group. I believe that when a sub-group adopts a tactic that is unhealthy it is up the community at large to resist that tactic for the good of the game.
|
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?
ajqtrz wrote:
The only rallying I've done is pretty gentle. I've not organized a single army to go against any of the opposition for their stance in the forums or out.
|
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?
ajqtrz wrote:
I'd like to see that screen shot because I don't remember doing anything of the sort. It would be highly unlike me. Are you sure it came from me?
The recent resurgence of attacks on my cities came about because one player heard I was amassing armies with with to take on BB. But, obviously, I wasn't. I never intended to do so. Where he got that information, I do not know. One person suggested my insistence on B!B surrender to me (in the Illy Times) could be interpreted in that manner, but that was months ago.
|
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
It would one thing if reading my posts was a required activity of the game...but the last time I check nobody is required to do so.
|
Neither is not playing nice and razing your cities so there is no issue here right?
ajqtrz wrote:
I don't mean the land claims. I mean the method of enforcement. If some alliance decides to move close to you and they are allowed to intimidate you by threats of coercion, will impact your play style?
|
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 
ajqtrz wrote:
Being at war is usually the result of a perception of a crime having been done...not always, but very often. Now if the player had changed his ways, apologized, and refrained from repeating the offense, would you still have driven him from the game? If not, why not? Because the punishment should fit the crime. The purpose of punishment is rehabilitation for if it isn't then it's just a crime committed against a criminal.
|
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
I'm about 3/8 French. My family came from southern France in the 1600's. Nothing against them, but as Mark Twain famously said, "Them French aren't so smart, they can't even speak English" LOL
|
Why do you hate 3/8ths of yourself?
ajqtrz wrote:
I've trimmed 1/3 of this. Hope it helps. Besides, it's not like I'm just rambling....am I?
|
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. 
Edited by JodaMyth - 11 Feb 2016 at 03:40
|
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 Feb 2016 at 14:53 |
"... and you do ramble some."
EL OH EL, fer reel!
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
|
ajqtrz
Postmaster
Joined: 24 May 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 500
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 Feb 2016 at 20:58 |
JodaMyth wrote:
No.. I mean.. fairness on browser game forums... are you insane? (That was rhetorical, I will not entertain a discussion on your sanity)
|
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.
JodaMyth wrote:
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.
|
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.
JodaMyth wrote:
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'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.
JodaMyth wrote:
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.
|
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.
JodaMyth wrote:
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.
|
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?
JodaMyth wrote:
No. I just don't really care what happened years ago on Illy.
|
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.
JodaMyth wrote:
Actually, if SIN recruited another 42 members they wouldn't need to splt up their current group. Hence, they could control the west too. Three alliances could control all of Illyriad if they were as well organized and determined to use intimidation by threats of coercion as SIN. This is the fourth time that I can remember saying it, but SIN is the best organized and led alliance in Illy right now, in my opinion. And they are all the more dangerous for it.
|
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.
JodaMyth wrote:
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.
|
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.
JodaMyth wrote:
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?
|
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."
JodaMyth wrote:
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."
|
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.
JodaMyth wrote:
Neither is not playing nice and razing your cities so there is no issue here right?
|
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
|
|
JodaMyth
Greenhorn
Joined: 29 Jul 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 62
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 Feb 2016 at 04:05 |
ajqtrz wrote:
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. |
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
The question is: do players have the option to determine what it means to win for themselves?
|
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
The freedom to settle is just one of the many things which can be lost if we allow intimidation by threats of coercion.
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. |
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
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.
Who wants to live next to the State Farm Agent who uses intimidation by threats of coercion to enforce the purchase of insurance?
|
Firstly... it was called ultimate because a player can be razed to nothing, as said in the 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.
ajqtrz wrote:
You should. |
I should and yet, I don't.
JodaMyth wrote:
Actually, if SIN recruited another 42 members they wouldn't need to splt up their current group. Hence, they could control the west too. Three alliances could control all of Illyriad if they were as well organized and determined to use intimidation by threats of coercion as SIN. This is the fourth time that I can remember saying it, but SIN is the best organized and led alliance in Illy right now, in my opinion. And they are all the more dangerous for it.
|
I don't remember saying this 
ajqtrz wrote:
Using intimidation by threats of coercion is not one of the ways and is, in fact, an anathema to egalitarian based play. |
Can you explain what that means to us common folk?
ajqtrz wrote:
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. |
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
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. |
The difference being this is a game, when our armies die there are is no true impact.
ajqtrz wrote:
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. |
Because you have a war to deal with and rebuttals to write regarding the ethics of wars and the surrounding reasons.
ajqtrz wrote:
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. |
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
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.
|
You make a fair and valid point for the war to continue there.
ajqtrz wrote:
I didn't declare 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. |
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.
ajqtrz wrote:
I do not surrender, I keep my word.
|
Good for you, then don't complain about attacks continuing either.
ajqtrz wrote:
Good thing I called heads....I place my 6/4 domino on your pile of pixi sticks.
AJ
|
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 
|
|
Tweet
