When Gaming Gets Personal

Spreadsheets scare me.  Always have.

Dear AJ

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.

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

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