When Gaming Gets Personal

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:  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.

JodaMyth wrote:   You aren't arguing for a fact though, you are arguing to support the playstyle you feel should be the best represented. I do agree with you to an extent, I personally don't care what players do as long as it is not effecting myself or my alliance. I do believe that someone should be accountable for what they say though. In the same way I think players should be allowed to play they want, I think other players can try to oppress or attack another player since that is within their scope of playing the game the way they want. You are not the Galileo of Illy.

Let's talk about "play style."  In many, many games somewhat like Illyriad there are players who have an "aggressive game play" style that allows them to intimidate by threats of coercion.  Most of us have run into games where that is the dominant play style.  Are, on the whole, those games friendly to those who wish to be far less aggressive?  Is it not true that even in games where there can be multiple goals (like here and LoU, for instance) that the "aggressive game play" can get out of hand?  Is it not true that those type of players generally develop a definition of "winning" that may not be that of all players, but does become the dominant measure of the game.  Look at what I've said about my own definition of winning and see if you are laughing.  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. 

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?  I've spoken to more than one leader of those alliances and the ones to whom I have spoken are pretty much against intimidation by threats of coercion.  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." 

You see, the "aggressive game play" is okay if it's in a game where it's the only style allowed by the rules or the conventions of the game players.  Most "sandbox" games get to that style with it's "proper measure" of "winning" pretty fast.  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.  They wish to, both by example and by intimidation, get us to buy the idea that domination is the only respected measure of winning.  But I do not wish to make that the sole measure of winning and to provide for other respected avenues and goals.

Let's turn back to the history of this game again.  Let's ask ourselves of whom we are most proud?  Who is spoken of win respect and is most responsible for the meta-game we enjoy today...the one where friendliness and helpfulness by so many is such a shock to new players who have often left other games like Illyriad out of frustration with the intimidation by threats of coercion -- the "aggressive game play" style.  In the end you can dominate the map for a bit or go down in history for keeping Illyriad the friendly, un-intimidating place it is.

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?  Once established there do you really think they'll all settle down and play nice with you?  The point of "aggressive game play" is domination of EVERYBODY and the use of intimidation by threats of coercion will be used wherever it can be used...which means at your doorstep at some point.  More to the point though, even if it isn't directly effecting you now, it is and will do so in the future at least by discouraging growing payers and by encouraging the use of intimidation by threats of coercion in those new players.  It's a bit like a disease in that once you let it become okay it spreads.

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?

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).  Thus, while oppression is possible by the game mechanics, the meta-rules seem to think that it's not a good thing to use without some restraint.  In the past some of the larger alliances banned together to establish the meta-rules because they felt they were good for the game (and possibly, though I don't have any evidence for this, for them as well). 

But more to the point is that if you allow oppression you change the game into a single play style game.  Oppression means you are either dominated ...which means controlled....or you fight...which means a military.  The sandbox does not require you play those styles, but by allowing oppression you will be required to leave or become a fighter.  This is especially true if you take strong stances in the forums of course..

When you say I'm not "minding my own business" and that I have been "playing with [my] queen on [my] checkers board," you may be right.  But it's MY checkers board, so if I want to put my queen on it, what's it to you.  But of course, your beef is that you suppose I'm "telling the other people playing their games that they should be doing it differently." 

You would be right about the cricket bat to home plate if the forums were home plate.  You would be right about that if I were sending armies out to force players to play my way.  Neither is true or has ever been true.  If I were big enough to do that I might, since my opponents have decided that "words have consequences" I might be tempted to respond to their words in the same manner they have responded to mine...I MIGHT, but probably wouldn't as I believe in the sanctity of debate.  What is said at the podium stays at the podium and you don't have the right to punch your opponent in the mouth in the hallway because he implied something about character in the debate.  The only justifiable answer to an insult is the truth presented at the podium.  That's my belief and others' have less forgiving positions.

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.  When one side won't engage in positive actions to protect the game, the other side will engage in negative ones at will.  Nothing need be done if freedom is worth nothing.  So I am, and you are, minding our business.  I do it here because that's where I do it best.  Others may have, and probably will have, other venues where they can get involved.  My hope is that HERE we fight the fight and HERE we all decide to make the health of the game our primary concern when in the game.

Let's go back to the room.  1000 checker boards.  999 are playing checkers.  1, (me) playing a strange game of my own design.  I say, move my queen a couple of spaces.  How does that interfere with the other 999?  It doesn't.  So one of those players tells me that I have to play checkers I ask, why?  Then, when he tries to threaten me, I get a bit upset.  

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.  I'm not dictating to them, I in the process of slowly, and tenaciously convincing them to change their perspective.  And for the most part, I'm doing it in a place where they have no need to go....so if they are reading this, they choose to read this.

That is to imply you are minding your own business. From what I have seen you have been playing with your queen on you checkers board and telling the other people playing their games that they should be doing it differently. You can't both expect to be left alone and try telling others what they should be doing. In your flying a kite to baseball example it is possible to share the space, but in Illy it seems more like you are bringing a cricket bat up home plate. I, for lack of a better analogy, have been flying my kite around for a long time on Illy and never had an issue with a baseball team messing it up. 

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?  I don't think, in the long run, you and your alliance will be.  Not because the current crop of users of intimidation by threats of coercion are bad people, but because we just don't know who will join next week.  If they arrive and find the tactic acceptable under what circumstances will they decide not to use it?  If it's meta-game okay, it's okay, and that is the first step to domination of ALL players, small and large, new and old.

If my country were wrong and doing something that I thought had a good chance of putting it on to the path of extinction, and if all it took was not moving but changing political parties, you bet I'd "move."    If intimidation by threats of coercion is not harmful to the retention of players, if intimidation by threats of coercion did not, in other games, destroy those games, if intimidation by threats of coercion did not cause unneeded stress of other players, then I would probably not oppose it's use.  But it is harmful to the game.  It has caused other games to fold.  AND it causes unneeded stress to other players.  No person is wise who keeps to the company of those who do not care and who only look out for themselves.  We are in this game together and to be together we need to work together to insure that the game stays healthy.  That is what makes us Illyites and what makes Illyriad different.


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?  If he was unrepentant then he could not be corrected.  If he could not be corrected AND his actions and attitude were driving others from the game or causing them undo stress, then you had no choice but to take up arms.  For it is the responsibility of ALL player of Illyriad to first and foremost keep the game healthy for ALL the players.  You, in my opinion, therefore were doing your duty.  So why do you think it any less you duty to resist alliances who would like to play with the same unbridled aggressive game play style?  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." 

Choosing a play style is a personal thing.  I choose the peaceful one because that's what I like.  But, as you say, even pacifist sometimes need to take up arms.  You say you've been more aggressive in some games, and I don't doubt it.  But here's the thing, I would guess that in those games the "aggressive game play" style was already deep-seated and accepted so you really didn't have much choice.  Most games are like that.  They start out an open sandbox and end up with "domination of the sandbox by any means necessary" the final and only game style really allowed (everybody knows that in general the traders and crafters are considered second class citizens in most games).  Illy is different because is has resisted that curve.  It has resisted the same path for six years and if we are quite lucky will continue to do so now.  Hopefully by persuading those who would steer us to the path of extinction to turn with us away from the domination of the aggressive game play style.  But even if you did play that style in a game where other styles were allowed and attempted, do you now think what you did was without effect on others and the game?  Do you think that style helped that game be more friendly to more people?  If not, then it is you who must make a choice about how you play games in general.  You either have to decide that what you do in the game counts because it is being done to real people, or it doesn't and that the friendly and open nature of this sandbox is not worth saving.

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.

If they kick me back to the newb ring will you call me Galileo?  LOL

I play a "reverse" card from Sorry.

AJ

Tink XX wrote: ajqtrz wrote: But if it quacks, it waddles, and it's got webbed feet it isn't a turkey. Indeed! It must belong to one of the 180 species from the order Anseriformes.

Well how about that.  You agree with me.  LOL

Yes, I knew that while it was logical, it wasn't air tight.  But it's is funny, at least to me.

AJ

Hyrdmoth wrote: aj, who is intimidating you? Ajqtrz wrote: If you issue a blanket "if you enter my house I'll shoot you" you don't have to name every thief in the county.  The declaration that if you move into the claimed area without permission you will be removed is a blanket declaration and therefore intimidates me and everyone else who is not a part of that alliance. But it's really not about me. I'm fine where I'm at, and if others don't drive me away I'll be happy here in Almenly.   My opposition is the same opposition to the early Mal Mashians (however you spell that)

Hyrdmoth wrote: My (limited) experience of land claims is that if one asks nicely you can negotiate settling within another alliance's land claim. Your experience may vary, because people might decide they don't want to share their space with such a disputatious player. This is also true, some of the time, for your much vaunted 10-square rule. Many people simply want to know, ahead of time, that you want to settle eight or nine squares away, and don't raise an objection. Returning to the issue of the silversteel mine that I raised previously, I think you are hanging onto semantics by arguing that people who have occupied such squares with armies have "settled" those squares. The game sets a maximum occupation timescale of 14d 59m 59s on such armies. This is in no way analogous to a settled city which, after all, will take at least many months to develop. The threat of force is quite explicit in the presence of an occupying army, which will kill miners of a player who is not in the same alliance (or one with a confed/nap with the alliance of the occupying player). In order for a new player to mine these squares they will have to do one of three things: 1. Join the alliance of the occupying player (or one of it's confeds/naps) and arrange a time to mine there with the owning player. 2. Negotiate mining access with the owning player, perhaps paying a fee to do so. 3. Fight with their own military forces to take control of the mine. This is exactly the same situation as pertains with land claims, with one, fairly important, exception. Land claims are made publicly, and everyone can see what they are (thanks to an excellent map). Rare mineral locations are kept secret. Occupying armies, in my experience, often have large quantities of scouts in order to thwart the inquisitive diplomats of new players looking for the interesting rare mineral locations. I don't complain about this - I see it as part of the game - but I think it points to a logical inconsistency in your argument.

First, the claiming of the mines by occupying the mines is no different than claiming a settlement site with an occupying army. Both  have been allowed and both are actual occupations.  The same tactic could be used by the land claimers if they wished though it would be hard to figure out where they would get all those commanders.  It's actually an interesting idea since if they grabbed all the good sites in the "buffer zone" with armies it would be the same as using them on the mines.  The point is, the 7 food squares occupied by armies to save them for settlement is occupying them.  Claiming land you do not occupy or is not within the 10 square idea, is NOT occupying but occupying via intimidation by threats of coercion. 

So there are at least two differences.  First the mines are occupied.  If the land claimers wish to occupy the needed area, I've already said that is the right way to do it.  I don't care if they use armies spaced properly or not, it's part of the game mechanics and does not overtly use intimidation by threats of coercion.  The second way is exactly that.  If I'm occupying a space it may be a discouragement to you, but it isn't an intimidation by threats of coercion.  If you leave me alone on my space, there is no intimidation and the only coercion that could be used would be your choice to attempt to remove me.

The general rule in this sandbox, just as in any playground, is: if you're sitting in the swing you own the swing, but if you are not sitting in the swing you can't reserve it for when you eventually get there...the owner is the occupier.

So unless you can point to overt statements of intimidation by those occupying the mines (made before they did so, btw) then the intimidation by threats of coercion cannot be possible as there were no threats issued.

Thanks for your contribution as it certainly is a fresh approach.

AJ