When Gaming Gets Personal

JodaMyth wrote: 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.

+1 JodaMyth. some very selective reading of the cause-effect chain here. strategically asserting first cause is a great way to shift blame, assuming guilt and innocence have been prejudged.

Sargon,

First, thank-you for your thoughtful piece.  I do appreciate both the calm and yet forceful tenor of it.  I will, therefore, reply with some observation, but with the qualifier that I may have misunderstood that which you were attempting to say.  If such is the case, it's probably my fault more than your own.

 First, you seem to be arguing that the logic of syllogisms are a cultural manifestation and therefore subject to change.  Sadly, that is not the case for syllogisms have been around for over 2,000 years and have been taught, learned, and accepted in every literate culture across the globe, or at least every one of which I'm aware.  And they are accepted as logical.  The reason for that universal acceptance (with the lone exception, I must say, of some French feminist who have declared logic itself to be a patriarchal artifact and thus suspect).  The reason they have been so accepted is that the reflect something Aristotle labeled the "enthymeme."  Scholars have long disputed what Aristotle meant by the Enthymeme, but the literal translation, I think, give us a clue.  Literally it means, "in the mind" and Aristotle called it the "heart and soul of persuasion."  Given he also said that in the mind there existed a "proportionate mental space not unlike that of geometry" (De Anima), I conclude, with William and Martha Kneale, that the enthymeme is a process by which the imaginative space within the mind categorizes things into "in" and "out."  In other words, using the traditional syllogism: All men are mortal;  Socrates is a man; Socrates is [therefore] mortal, if you use a Venn diagram to draw this out, you will find that "all men" are completely in the space of that which is mortal (Major premise);  Socrates is fully within the category of men (Minor premise).  And therefore, in the 2 dimensional representation of the syllogism, Socrates is also fully in the space of mortal.  Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

To Aristotle, and to most cultures who have come into contact with syllogisms the logic of the syllogism is so clear that that denial of it's, well, logic, is rare and usually has nothing to do with the logic, but instead, the premises from which the logic begins.

One thing you do forget is that it is NOT I who is making the conclusions, it is the logic.  The syllogisms are not my personal thoughts, they are what the premises drive you to conclude.  I can no more make something logical which is not, than my opponents can make illogical that which is demonstratively logical.  Logic is in the structure, not in my presentation of it.

So your claim that I am standing against them alone, is a miss of what they are actually up against.  They are up against the logic as laid out.  That they keep attacking me is irrelevant. 

I do think you are right that the premises with which I begin my argument are places where my conclusions can be attacked.  In one post I've laid out the six premises of my argument and invited attacks on each of them.  To my knowledge no one has as yet taken up the challenge and thus, there they stand.

The moral premises with which I start are: "do unto other as you would do unto them" and "avoid causing needless pain whenever possible."  Most players, I think, have no problem subscribing to both, but, as you note, they may think applying them to this game to be irrelevant.  Much of my argument has dealt with the idea that when we enter into an imaginary area of play we can forget about our morals, because I argue, and science so far supports my view, that it is impossible for you to not take yourself into the game.  In other words, what happens in Illy does not stay in Illy, it is carried with you in some form or other.  What exactly is carried with you, how much is carried with you, and if it's a net good or net bad thing, is up for debate, but not that you are not effected by what you do and say and what is done and said to you in the game.  I like to term the idea that players are "present" in the game and that is the connection which forces us to bring morality into the game.

Have you ever planted a garden?  I have.  A very large one in fact.  I plowed the ground with a 7hp hand plow, tilled it, cultivated it, planted and pulled out the weeds.  I was 13 years old and my garden was beautiful.  But then my grandfather got sick 600 miles away.  My family jumped in our car and mad the trip. When we got there he was very ill, but managed to hang on for a few weeks.  So we stayed.

Meanwhile, back at my beautiful garden the weeds began to grow.  And because the soil was so fertile the grew very well indeed.  After six weeks I returned and found a good deal of my crop was choked out by the weeds.  When I left there were only minor weed problems and I could deal with them easily.  But because I didn't deal with them when they were tiny and insignificant, I had to work very hard to do so later.

Intimidation by threats of coercion is like a weed.  It isn't a nice thing to have in the garden of Illy.  It chokes out those who would settle in some areas and intimidates those near those areas since, as I've found out, if you oppose them, they will strike.   Intimidation does not stop at the border and is not just within the land area claimed.  It's a tactic which, if allowed, can be planted in all kinds of ways.  An alliance can, for instance, declare that anybody in a certain area who is not sending troops to fight for them, is an enemy and will be removed.  It can say, if you are a new player you will give me a certain payment for my "protection."  It can do great damage once we allow it on the playground.  It's not about the claiming of land, it's about the health of the game.

Going against so many players wills may or may not be true.  Have you ever wondered just how many players are pro-intimidation by threats of coercion and how many anti?  No method that I know of, can measure that.  The best measures though, are two: how many alliances are using the tactic of intimidation by threats of coercion, and, how many people are posting in the forums for or against the tactic.

The overwhelming majority of alliances do not use intimidation by threats of coercion.  Most don't make land claims.  There may be a lot of reasons for that, but one of them might be that they don't indorse the practice of intimidation by threats of coercion.  The other measure is that most posters are pro-intimidation by threats of coercion.  Of course, given the strong arguments I present and the tenacity with which present them it would be unusual for the pro-intimidation by threats of coercion, to ignore those posts.  And if, as I believe, I'm more than holding my own in the debate, there really isn't any need for many anti-intimidation by threats of coercion players to say much.  But of course, that may be just my imagination. 

The point is, we don't know how many people are on one side or the other because we don't have any way to really measure.  I do wish those who were anti intimidation by threats of coercion would speak up, but maybe my own shouting has just drowned them out.  For that I am sorry.

As for the social practice of being something other than you are in the offline world, I do not believe that it is possible to not bring you personality into an unscripted environment and thus to pretend you are just "play acting."  Oh, I believe you can tell yourself that, but I also think the line between the imaginative and the real is very thin when it comes to human psychology and even thinner when it comes to human physiology.  Our bodies release the same chemicals when we are frightened at a horror movie as we do when we are frightened in real life.  Play is, in fact, one way we choose to experience the thrill of danger without the risk of harm.  If our minds were able to keep our bodies from experiencing the rush of being in danger because we know we really aren't in danger, every roller coaster would be shut down. 

Finally, you do seem to think Illyriad is a war game.  I have no problem with you playing it as a war game as long as you don't intimidate other into playing it as such when they have no wish to do so.  Intimidation by threats of coercion, and the subsequent acts of coercion are not healthy in any game except for, perhaps, those where military action is necessary and unavoidable and part of the formula for "winning."  But that would mean the game designers have laid out what it means to win, and that hasn't happened in this sandbox.

Thank you for your comments.

AJ

JodaMyth,

In re-reading your post you have raised an interesting question.  If a person is "punished" for what he has said or done, is it his fault that he is suffering?  Of course, it depends on if he did something contrary to the rules, doesn't it?  And that depends on whose rules are in place. 

Thus, if the one being punished is enduring the pain because he rejects the right of the "rule maker" to make the rule, then, to him, the punishment is unjust because the "rule maker" does not have the right to administer justice.  Justice is a product of the authority of the administrator to enforce it.  If everyone recognizes the authority of the administrator, then the administration of justice is just within that system.  But if the administer does not have the authority to administer justice, then the administration of it, is unjust.

The question of administration in the game is one which is up for debate.  Currently a minority of alliances have taken it upon themselves to claim the right to administer justice against other players in a certain area and another group has claimed that the first does not have that right, but that they, as representatives of the entire community, wish for the entire community to have the authority to administer justice in all the land of Illy.  You may, of course, argue that this second group does not represent the general consensus, but it is pretty certain those claiming the right to administer justice in some ares do not have the majority granting them that right.

My purpose and hope is that those who are granting themselves that right will decide that it is better for Illyriad that no single alliance be allowed to use intimidation by threats of coercion as a tactic for claiming the administrative jurisdiction over an area.  I hope they change their mind because the logic tells them to do so.  I hope they change their mind to avoid unnecessary wars.  I hope they change their mind because they care about Illyriad more than about their own "winning."

AJ

Sargon

The major point you are making in your response boils down to this: not everybody believes the premises with which I start are true.  I will get to that in a moment.

The traditional definition of enthymeme is wrong.  But because it has been around for hundreds of years it is what is in the dictionary.  Words change their meaning and when translating a word from Classical Greek scholarship can move slowly.  Lloyd Bitzer was my doctoral adviser and my thinking comes out of his works as well as the Kneale's whom I mentioned.  

Of course the whole discussion of enthymeme is probably not relevant since it appears to me that you are not arguing that syllogism can't be used to reveal the logic of an idea, but that the premises from which I start are not the premises from which my opponents start.

In the following thread: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/why-preach_topic6767_page8.html I lay out the premises and the possible attack points.  I am fully aware that all logic is only a tool.  If one begins with untrue premises and uses perfect logic he or she will almost always reach untrue conclusions.  There is truth and there is validity.  Syllogisms only allow us to reach valid conclusions, not necessarily true ones.

So there are the syllogisms I use.  If you wish, take a shot at any or all the premises and let's find out which are true or untrue.

The dividing line between the online and offline persona of the player is much thinner than most people would like to think.  The studies I've read and the ones I've posted, show that the effects of imaginary play on the persona of of the player are real.  How long they last and in what ways is a continual debate, but that playing online has an effect on our offline personas is not an easily debated point. When a research subject is given the opportunity to act as the teacher and to  "punish" an unknown "student", and the "teacher" will administer a much higher and more dangerous shock to the "student" when the "student" doesn't answer a question correctly than if he or she can see the "student" or knows the "student" socially.  Anonymity tends to lower moral inhibitions.

In Illyriad we have the psychological distance of "double anonymity" and thus, it is easier for the average person to administer "punishment" at a higher level than if they know the other player is a real person.  My argument is a effort to stop the types of behavior the very people who engage in them in Illyriad would not tolerate if they were done by their offline persona.  One of the many logical problems those who are so angry at me have is to answer why they, the offline persona, is mad at an anonymous and "not real" avatar?  They cannot both argue that it is "just a game" and therefore, by implication (and sometimes actually stated) should not affect the offline persona, at the same time they show that their offline persona present in the game is being affected.  Avatars do not get mad.  Players do.  And they bring their "real selves" into the game (a point also explored in various studies) and it's their "real selves" who are affected.  

Once you get to the point of recognizing players are present in the game, you then have another problem, how should they be treated?  That's where morals come in and, like it or not, unless you can prove the players are not present in the game, you have to ask what is moral.

In the offline world the use of intimidation by threats of coercion is considered immoral.  In western  cultures and in many others, we value the freedom to choose without intimidation by threats of coercion.  Therefore, using intimidation by threats of coercion in a non-scripted environment where you are not required to do so, is a moral choice.  Since the moral choices we make, if they are in-congruent with our ideal self, are damaging to our self esteem, it stands to reason that to let people engage in unnecessary intimidation by threats of coercion is damaging to them as well as their victims.

So, in the end the distinction you wish to make between the "online game" and the "real world" is a chimera.  The same person is present in Illy as in the world outside of Illy.

You are correct to recognize that "can" does not mean "will.'  I've recognized this point many times and keep asking who will guarantee that the "cans' of which I speak, "will not ever" occur?

It is always good practice to consider what may happen in a course you are contemplating and then to ask yourself what are the odds once you take that course, of those things happening.  Is more likely, once you have allowed the tactic of "intimidation by threats of coercion" for the tactic to be used in other circumstances than land claims or less likely?  Does a mechanism exist by which the tactic can be restricted to land claims?  Will the current crop of users of intimidation by threats of coercion guarantee the tactic will not be allowed in other contexts?  Will they be here next year, the year after or the year after that when one of the scenarios that use intimidation by threats of coercion is attempted?

Even with the best intentions and the nicest crop of users of intimidation by threats of coercion, once you let the genie out of the bottle you won't be putting it back in any time soon.

AJ



Edited by ajqtrz - 16 Feb 2016 at 19:37

Personally I don't think in-game retribution is a useful response to ranting on the forum.  It seems unlikely to produced the desired result, if that result is less ranting.