| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
ajqtrz 
Postmaster
Joined: 24 May 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 500
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote  Reply
 Posted: 07 Mar 2016 at 22:15 |
 ajqtrz wrote:
Sargon wrote:
Dear AJ
ajqtrz wrote:
Perhaps you could describe the form of debate you envision
|
Well, I am certainly a child of continental philosophy/history of thought and postmodernism. I have seen enough historical and recent debates and read enough of (postmodern) philosophy to be convinced that I am neighter totally right, nor that there is a chance of convincing a good deal of persons just by 'rational' debate of my positions. So when I do debate, I do it as a hermeneutic endeavour that aims at understanding (myself and the other) or at perserving a in my view healthy plurality of opinions (in my debate with you both were the case).
|
One of the confusions in the present post-post-structuralist milieu is the difference between the statement "Truth cannot be known" and "Truth cannot be know with certainty." About 80 to 100 years ago now the philosophical world shifted their emphasis from metaphysics of ontology to epistemology after coming to the conclusion that truth cannot be known with certainty, and the discussion of things has bogged down ever since, to the point where most people believe that "truth cannot be know" and have dropped the "with certainty." The loss is monumental.
You can, of course, follow the reasoning of Derrida, Foucault and others, that all truth is constructed out of bits of pieces of imagined reality to support you own particular brand of "ism," and that there are no "ism's" superior to any other "ism's," or you can try to figure out if all those bits and pieces of reality actually reveal a structure (hence structuralism versus post-structuralism and then post-post-structuralism). My take is that difference between what the philosophers of 100 years ago said and what has been received is the loss of the "with certainty" bit, for they concluded that no form of knowing was sufficient enough to be infallible. (But of course it all starts with De Carte and the radical skepticism whereby the shift of knowledge was moved from that of the society to that of the individual knower, but going back that far would make this extremely long indeed). Suffice it to say I do hold that "truth" can be known, but not with the certainty required by De Carte, Spinoza and the rest. Radical skepticism, I think, leads us to the limits of the individual mind that that is not very helpful the result of which is that our post-post-structuralist world is standing on a philosophical sand dune and has lost it's footing.
|
ajqtrz wrote:
Sargon wrote:
I mean, for example no one would take me serious if I would write an article about wether Justin Martyr or Tryphon were right in their discussion about emerging Christianity, but it would be a decent work of science if I tried to outline why they believed/said what they said in the way they said it, what their influences were etc. Trying to decide who is right and wrong rarely is a fruitful endeavour, for yourself and the world, trying to learn something from/about your opponent more often than not is, and in that way you might actually find ways to at least partially influence them.
|
In the rarefied air of academia you are correct that "trying to decide who is right and wrong" is "rarely" a "fruitful endeavour" but my experience has been that it's usually not because academics don't want to act as if there is no right and wrong, they just don't be fully responsible for determining what is right and wrong. The fleeing from responsibility that is our post-post-structuralist world, is evident in the way many people insist that making a judgement about something is inherently wrong. If you ask them why it's wrong they get that deer in the headlight look and can't even conceive of the idea that anybody, in this day and age, could actually believe there is a right and a wrong and that they can be known to any degree, let alone certainty. We are afraid of being judges because we haven't done the homework of understanding needed to have a measure. We are like a land surveyor who cannot tell you where things are because he threw away his equipment. "Don't ask me" he says, while asked, and then claims to be the one who will reveal where the boundary is because he is, after all, a surveyor.
But that's academia, a very suspect group if ever there were one. And you are probably not correct in your imaginary article. I'll bet you could get that published pretty easily in the PMLA or QJS. (Modern Language Association or Quarterly Journal of Speech, for those who may not have drank the kool-aid of academia). My point is that once you let go of any grounds of knowledge there is no knowledge that is grounded. In my opinion, in good existentialist fashion, I therefore choose to believe (i.e. the Old English, "to live by") the idea that the rational mind is the closest thing we have to knowing and we had better dang well use it or, as one famous essay argued, we will all be "Sloughing Towards Gomorrah."
|
ajqtrz wrote:
Sargon wrote:
Harping on about principles usually does just justice to the abstarct necessities of rational debate and not to the actual, pragmatic level we are all living in, though in different ways. Going into a debate with the conviction to be able to declare someone right and rational and the rest to be in the wrong and having irrational views is a highly simplified view on the messiness of the human condition and thus does injustice to the world, intellectually and morally in my view/experience. Or put somewhat easier, the structures of rational debate are not the structures of the world we are living in, and surly that is not the 'fault' of the people living there.
|
You are correct, things are messy. But that messiness is seldom the result of rational inquiry. Rational inquiry usually just challenges us to order the ideas and concepts and out of that order to think more clearly for ourselves. It matters little if all people believe the same thing because if we at least make the attempt to be rational we will come closer to cooperation.
Underneath your vision though, is what I call an atomistic examination of knowledge. In my opinion all knowledge is granular. At one level a statement may be true enough to be useful, but at another that same statement may seem harsh, incorrect, questionable, confused or whatever. Academics tend to examine ideas at a level that sometimes reduces words to the level of absurdity. Average people, not "properly" trained, have a less nuanced approach to language and thus, are more accepting of an imprecision which then enables them to know things with a certainty a finer grained approach would find unknowable. It's a bit like an Impressionist painting in that you have to do two things to get to the truth: stand back and squint a bit.
ajqtrz wrote:
Sargon wrote:
And that is why I am not trying to show that your view is wrong, because neither do I think it is, nor do I think it can or should be done... You are just mistaken if you think you can force it on others and especially so if you blame them for not coming to your conclusions and making that into another indication of your rightness...
|
The term "force" implies an external locus of control. If a person reasons to a logical conclusion and then decides to follow where the logic takes him or her, they are in control. They are exhibiting an internal locus of control. Thus, if I were able to bring a person by way of a chain of reasoning, to a place where they would see clearly that the conclusions drawn were both true and valid, and they, in response to that chain of reasoning made a decision to believe the conclusion, was it me or the logic that drives them to the decision? One has to separate the logic of the argument from the arguer. In the end it's the one deciding to follow the logic who is "forcing" themselves to do so.
If one rejects logic and reason the only alternative is force. Thus, I try to use what I can to avoid force as it's a anathema to civilized behavior and should be used only in dire circumstances when no appeals to reason are forthcoming and the harm is significant. I say they are wrong based upon reason because they are. Rational thought leads in one basic direction and I've watched as point by point they have lost the moral and pragmatic ground upon which the use of intimidation by threats of coercion are based.
A lot of people have see my "crusade" as a moral one. I find it funny that so many declare I have no right to have a moral crusade when declaring that I have no right to do so, is itself, a moral declaration. We have, I think, in Western culture anyway, become so enamored of our resistance to moral preaching that we can't hear the moral preaching we do in declaring moral preaching wrong.
That my writing and speaking make many uncomfortable is not surprising since most are not used to being challenged about much of what they do, let alone an online playground like Illyriad. But morals, whatever they be, always go where the player goes and since the players of Illy are present in the game, so are their morals.
|
[Quote=ajqtrz][QUOTE=Sargon]I am afraid this won´t help, as probably we both are having a quite different understanding of the text, but think yourself as Antigone and me as Ismene in the euripidian sense... |
Not familiar with Ismene (at least don't remember the play). I'll review it and see if I agree. I'm more thinking though, of Socrates and Gorgias. Philosophers and Sophists visions. AJ
|
 |
ajqtrz
Postmaster
Joined: 24 May 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 500
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Mar 2016 at 20:58 |
ajatrz wrote:
Thexion wrote:
As I have played the game from first weeks building a town lacks
novelty, although its still fun to do. Trading and crafting lacks goal
or purpose if you just pile gold, armors and weapons. Therefore Conflict
and challenge is something that game desperately needs in suitable
amounts. I have never been much of a tournament person playing a game
within a game is redundant or asinine especially prices are not often
worth the troops you have to waste.
|
There is, I think, a thread of reason throughout your comments, namely, that you think the purpose of the game is to have the kind of fun you enjoy. And you are correct. But the kind of fun you like, the warfare etc...is not the only kind of fun one can have here. Some people find it fun to collect things, some to trade, and others to craft. To you they lack goals or purpose, but to others the purpose of a good trade is satisfaction. To some gathering a million of something is purpose enough. Thus, the great thing about Illyriad is that you can determine your fun for yourself. However, how would you feel I somehow I was able to force you to spend your time as a gatherer? Suppose I could somehow make you engage in activities you found boring? Would you stay here if you were forced to "play" in ways you did not find fun? I've always said that what is inappropriate and unneeded and which takes fun from other players, should be avoided. If I have a goal of putting a city in every realm, and that's my fun, and some land claiming alliance decides to "remove" me, isn't that spoiling my fun? And since I'm not a threat the blanket issuing of the threat is itself a unnecessary hindrance to my fun.
Conflict and challenge, as you define them, are not hard to come by in Illyriad. All you have to do is find willing people who are like minded and go to war to your hearts content. The problem is, in Illyriad, there are a lot of players who would rather avoid war as it's very costly and the amount of time it takes to rebuild can be daunting. Nevertheless, if the warriors don't want to make war amongst themselves, it war should not be forced upon the rest of us as it detracts from the fun we wish to have.
In the end it's about recognizing that there are all kinds of players in the sandbox and that we must try to find how to cooperate in our different styles of play and goals. We must give up some things to insure that all players are as free as possible to pursue their goals. Intimidation of non warring players by threats of coercion is neither helpful or fair as it makes one style of play dominant at the expense of others.
|
ajatrz wrote:
Thexion wrote:
Why threats and coercion is
good for the game is it creates conflict, challenge and that creates
interest for the game. This creates more reasons to play and enjoy the
game. Thus it is not bad for the game. Is it fair for individual player
who is targeted probably not. Then again someone besiege your town or
stealing your resources is not fun either for the individual player, but
it creates the challenge. Potential threat that player can avoid, run
away from or prepare and fight against (and prevail who knows).
|
You are correct that more warfare may create more interest in the game by those interested in warfare. But at the expense of those who are not. There are many, many and in fact, more truly war games out there than any other type. It's my contention that if anybody wishes to really play at warfare alone this is not the venue for them. I've seen other sandboxes ruined when the play became dominated by intimidation by threats of coercion by large alliances. Illyriad is unique in that it has resisted the move to large alliance domination by intimidation and threats of coercion and I would like us to refrain from moving any closer to that situation.
Again, your assumption is that it is a war game beneath it all and that anybody playing should be forced to make war, run, or suffer the consequences. I believe it's a sandbox where the players, as a group, have the authority to correct things if they move in the direction of one style of play dominating the others. Intimidation by threats of coercion is a war tactic and an unneeded one at that. It is not good for the game because it is apparent that most players here wish to avoid war and thus it appears to be the will of the majority that things which force war upon others be avoided.
[Quote=ajqtrz][QUOTE=Thexion]
But
like most things volume makes poison too much threats or coercion or
forcing is bad for the game no doubt and makes it not fun. I just don't
think its even near the limit or dependent of land claims. Community
demanding peace for everyone who want it would be much worse in my point
of view because there would be no longer real threat. |
I do think you are correct that too much of many things is bad overall. However, you wouldn't say a single instance of using intimidation by threats of coercion on an offline playground would be acceptable, so even a single instance of such behaviors should not be allowed here unless all parties are in agreement with the tactic....which they are not. Good post btw. AJ
|
|
Thexion
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 258
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 Mar 2016 at 14:01 |
|
As I have played the game from first weeks building a town lacks
novelty, although its still fun to do. Trading and crafting lacks goal
or purpose if you just pile gold, armors and weapons. Therefore Conflict
and challenge is something that game desperately needs in suitable
amounts. I have never been much of a tournament person playing a game
within a game is redundant or asinine especially prices are not often
worth the troops you have to waste.
Why threats and coercion is
good for the game is it creates conflict, challenge and that creates
interest for the game. This creates more reasons to play and enjoy the
game. Thus it is not bad for the game. Is it fair for individual player
who is targeted probably not. Then again someone besiege your town or
stealing your resources is not fun either for the individual player, but
it creates the challenge. Potential threat that player can avoid, run
away from or prepare and fight against (and prevail who knows).
But
like most things volume makes poison too much threats or coercion or
forcing is bad for the game no doubt and makes it not fun. I just don't
think its even near the limit or dependent of land claims. Community
demanding peace for everyone who want it would be much worse in my point
of view because there would be no longer real threat.
|
|
Sargon
New Poster
Joined: 24 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 32
|
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 Mar 2016 at 09:33 |
Dear AJ
ajqtrz wrote:
Perhaps you could describe the form of debate you envision
|
Well, I am certainly a child of continental philosophy/history of thought and postmodernism. I have seen enough historical and recent debates and read enough of (postmodern) philosophy to be convinced that I am neighter totally right, nor that there is a chance of convincing a good deal of persons just by 'rational' debate of my positions. So when I do debate, I do it as a hermeneutic endeavour that aims at understanding (myself and the other) or at perserving a in my view healthy plurality of opinions (in my debate with you both were the case).
I mean, for example no one would take me serious if I would write an article about wether Justin Martyr or Tryphon were right in their discussion about emerging Christianity, but it would be a decent work of science if I tried to outline why they believed/said what they said in the way they said it, what their influences were etc. Trying to decide who is right and wrong rarely is a fruitful endeavour, for yourself and the world, trying to learn something from/about your opponent more often than not is, and in that way you might actually find ways to at least partially influence them.
Harping on about principles usually does just justice to the abstarct necessities of rational debate and not to the actual, pragmatic level we are all living in, though in different ways. Going into a debate with the conviction to be able to declare someone right and rational and the rest to be in the wrong and having irrational views is a highly simplified view on the messiness of the human condition and thus does injustice to the world, intellectually and morally in my view/experience. Or put somewhat easier, the structures of rational debate are not the structures of the world we are living in, and surly that is not the 'fault' of the people living there.
And that is why I am not trying to show that your view is wrong, because neither do I think it is, nor do I think it can or should be done... You are just mistaken if you think you can force it on others and especially so if you blame them for not coming to your conclusions and making that into another indication of your rightness...
I am afraid this won´t help, as probably we both are having a quite different understanding of the text, but think yourself as Antigone and me as Ismene in the euripidian sense...
|
|
kodabear
Postmaster General
Player Council - Astronomer
Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Location: Lucerna
Status: Offline
Points: 1237
|
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 Mar 2016 at 00:05 |
Ajq Please stop putting every little thing in quote It make it hard to read
|
|
ajqtrz
Postmaster
Joined: 24 May 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 500
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Mar 2016 at 23:53 |
ajqtrz wrote:
Sargon wrote:
ajqtrz wrote:
"While in almost all of
your reply you do not address the logic of what I'm saying and thus, do not
answer my challenge. "
|
Oher players an I myself
did so repeatedly, and it is getting extremly annoying to hear your
haughty rumblings about others not doing so, obviously your conviction to do
the right thing is impairing your abilities to actually engage and understand
other human beings in a non-authoritarian way.
One last time the short version for you:
A) Even you yourself acceded to the fact that not all
threats are bad and wrong, therefore your premise is reduced to "some
instances of threats are bad", so your conclusion that landclaiming by
threats is bad isn´t forcing and necessary anymore.
|
The word "unnecessary" is in the statement. All UNNECESSARY threats are harmful. By leaving out the qualifier you change the
premise and thus your conclusion cannot be drawn from what I've said. My point about not all threats are bad is
that there are "necessary" threats and thus, "not all threats
are bad," but all unnecessary ones are.
|
ajqtrz wrote:
Sargon wrote:
B) Even if we would agree that generally threats are bad,
almost everyone here disagreed to its (full) application in games, especially
ones with war implemented in them anyways. Your only argument for that is a
study showing some sort of bad influence while ignoring the studies showing
that on a socienal level there is no percievable negative effect of gaming so
far. So you are jumping again from a 'some' to a general statement, again
highly doubtful performance on your side. |
Again you appeal to popular sentiment as if it could replace
logic. As for the studies I'm pretty
sure I've covered them fairly. I've
noted that there are some that do not show significant problems, but the two or
three meta-studies I've read report that over all most studies do show there is
some effect. The duration, direction and
intensity of the effects is still being studied, but that there is an effect is
not debated by any competent cyberpsychologist of whom I'm aware.
Your focus on the societal level assumes that for there to
be an effect it has to result in a crime being committed and reported. That is simply a false standard.
|
ajqtrz wrote:
Sargon wrote:
C) Even if it would be applyable in games in general (what
more or less everyone denied), it is quite obvious that the level of threat
applied in Illy so far is extremly low, that is why you try to drive your
points home with big extrapolations and not the actual reality here so far,
while only latter would be a forceful basis for arguments...
|
It may be low or high but that's not the point. It's not NECESSARY. And if you harm unnecessarily you harm. More to the point in some ways, every person
playing any game expects there to be some downside because that is the nature
of competition, but no one should expect unnecessary harm from the game. In fact a good deal of rules in sports are
there to reduce the level of harm done.
The point of games for everybody to have the most fun that can be hand
without unnecessary harm.
And you are right in that I do extrapolate. However, if you read the latest land claim
you will find an expanded list of things players can't do in the claimed
area. In other words it only natural to
suspect that absolute power over an area leads to absolute control of
everything in that area including the players NOT in your alliance. It only takes two points and a direction to
figure out where things are going. The
first claims by "nice guys" restricted settlement only. This one includes harvesting. That is an
expansion of the control claimed.
Sovereignty is absolute control and granting it to anyone but the
players as a whole is not necessary or good for the game.
|
ajqtrz wrote:
Sargon wrote:
ajqtrz wrote:
"You claim that I'm
"alone" and that therefore I should refrain from any further
discussion of the matter as, being alone, should be sufficient evidence that
I'm wrong to get me to stop."
|
I did this because of two
reasons:
A) Rightness and wrongness in
a debate and argument are never ever decided by the main acteurs in it while
still disagreeing. On the small scale it is decided by the onlookers, and in
the long run by the history of effect. Aristotle wasn´t a good
philosopher because he thought so about himself, but because other thought so
and had recourse to his arguments and methods. Obviously we can´t wait 1-2
generations to see wich side works out better and has more effect, bystanders
are also a shaky thing here, so I think the ones joining the debate without
directly being targeted (like peaceful Angrim, trainingalliance Joda and small
harmless newby me) are a reasonable indicator of how well you are doing. If
people that are close to what you wish everyone to do (refraining from lan
dclaims and threats) don´t agree with your argumentation, a big suprise and a
re-evaluation of your assumptions should be a way more effective way to reach
your goals than to declare them irrational... Right now it is like someone
calling for worldpeace in such a bad way that even amnesty international,
doctors against the proliferation of atom bombs and journalists without
boundaries are against him instead of just the dictators and the weapons lobby...
|
In a formal debate you can claim to have won the point. And if you have, and the judge considers the
evidence so overwhelming that you have won then there is nothing wrong with
declaring it so. And if the point you
have just declared to be settled is settled you build upon that base.
Of course it is not really decided by anyone in an informal
debate because there is no mechanism by which to decide. But it is decided by each individual in the
audience, including yourself, your opponent, and the rest of the participants,
speakers or not. If the evidence on one
side is pretty clearly good and solid and the other side does not put forth a
coherent and consistent counter-claim, it is perfectly acceptable to note that
your opponents are no longer arguing the point...as I've done with a number of
points in the current debate.
Actually there are many studies that show those who think
they are good at something become better at it.
Aristotle may have thought he was good at it before he became good at
it. My personal experience is that people generally go in the direction of which they think you have natural talent...and thus that they are going to be good at or are already good at to some degree.
As for those who refrain from land claims but don't agree
with me, I'm glad they refrain. However,
what I think you are really saying is that their motives determine their
stance. That they don't have the motives
for putting forth a land claim and cannot see the harm does not mean that
therefore land claims are not a problem.
Again it matters not what motivates a person in their argument but what
moves the argument logically.
I love the analogy.
But of course just because Doctors Without Borders argues against
someone calling for world peace it doesn't mean they suddenly want WWIII. You can still hold a conclusion and disagree
with the argument another puts forth to reach that conclusion. And you can still hold the opposite
conclusion and disagree with the person putting forth that conclusion, and be
wrong. It's not the stance of my friends
or opponents which influences me or should influence me, it's the logic. My friends should only influence me to look
more carefully than I do and only that because I assume then they are not
trying to "defeat" me for the sake of defeating me. But respect simply says, "I am
listening" not "I agree."
It would be quite dis-respectful to claim to believe something you do
not agree with for the sake of honoring friendship. Friends don't require full agreement from
friends. At least that's been my
experience.
|
ajqtrz wrote:
Sargon wrote:
B) Even if you are right, your performance can still hurt
your case, so that a certain ammount of decorum is better for your cause than
an ongoing struggle that annoys more and more people. So it was more a
stop-doing-it-because-you-are-right. And as I said, I appreciate peacefulness,
I am just afraid your performance hurts the case for an as peaceful game as
possible...
|
You'd be surprised at the number of times I've received thanks for my standing here making this case. Almost nobody who reads the forums responds and many who don't actually agree with me. But of course we can't very well take a survey, can we? (Even if we could it would be skewed by whichever side was motivated to "vote")
Actually I've found that most people haven't really kept up
with my "performance." Most
people are too easily swayed by the perceptions of those who disagree with me
and the sometimes nasty things they say about me and my performance in GC and other
places. In other words, it's not
surprising that people perceive my performance as lacking since there are some people
out there who, having been hurt by my holding their feet to the fire, want to
blame my style for their hot feet. I
expect that out of many people because it generally takes a long time and
effort to get people to change their mind and in the mean time the discomfort
they feel is blamed upon the messenger rather than what the message says about
them.
It's not that my performance has not been without
mistakes. I've responded at times somewhat
forcefully, I've occasionally overstated things, and even, a few time, had
to admit I was wrong about something.
But overall I do believe my responses have been more measured and civil
than most of my opponents. I've generally held to a higher standard because I do, in fact, wish this to be a civil debate and not a shouting match, and many of my opponents do, in fact, act civilly. But sadly, not all.
Of course those who have suffered defeat wish to find fault, but that
too, is natural. I'm not proud of
everything I've said or how I've said it, but I'm not ashamed in the least over
my performance. My only request is that
you read my responses and see for yourself if they have not often held back
where they could have attacked, addressed the subject at hand for the most part
rather than the character of my opponent, and so on. And if you find any fault do let me know. I've apologized before and have no problem
doing so in the future. |
ajqtrz wrote:
Sargon wrote:
ajqtrz wrote:
"In addition you
claim that I do not understand my opponents. Au contraire mon ami,"
|
Well, if you understand someone is in the end decided by
him/her and not you. Directly and indirectly it was stated above by others and
now directly by me: I don´t think that you totally get my points, and usually
you skip the ones I deem quite strong...
|
Actually communication is not exclusively source
driven. Wimsatt and Beardsley spoke of
the intentional fallacy as well as the affective fallacy in the interpretation
of meaning. A communication act may have
a single meaning but it may also have various meanings and that one person
thinks it means one thing and another something else is not surprising. However it may be the meaning is somewhat
negotiated by the responses to the speaker by the receiver and the receiver to
the speaker so that, in the end, some level of understanding does occur. That's human communication and it sucks at
being precise outside the logic and mathematical areas where symbols are
strictly defined by other symbols. So
what are the major points I've missed addressing? I'll do my best to address them if I haven't
in the past.
In addition, I game opportunity for my opponents to correct any miss-understandings I had of their points. Since, for the most part, they did not, they gave tacit agreement that I at least understood those points at that time. I might add that most of those points are no longer being discussed as the ground upon which they stand is no longer a tenable position for my opponents.
|
ajqtrz wrote:
Sargon wrote:
ajqtrz wrote:
"You seem to want to
make the discussion about a claim you think I'm making that my moral starting
points are universal. But I don't claim that at all. I
would be, in good Socratic imitation, satisfied if you and my opponents in this
debate were to ascribe to my major and minor premises.I began with these premises because I did, and do in
fact, believe you and my opponents do ascribe to them."
|
See above, but just to
declare it again, I don´t ascribe to your premise, because I think it is wrong,
not from the intent (wrong intent is quite rarely a problem in my experience,
and I have studied in the humanities, so I had to deal with a lot of debates
and opinions by historical acteurs and modern scholars) but from the extent you
want to give it.
|
Well then, to which of the premises are you referring when
you say you "don't ascribe to your premise?" You seem to be saying that you don't agree
that something I said will or does extend as much in the direction I claim it
extends. I hope I've got it right because if so now all
I need is a more specific statement of what I "extended" that should
not have been so far "extended."
|
ajqtrz wrote:
Sargon wrote:
ajqtrz wrote:
"They don't believe in a real debate"
|
Well, I certainly do, but
obviously not in a way you do, as you are making it into a game that is about
winning instead of actually engaging the minds of other persons. And with that
you can consider me out of this debate, I don´t need to win, you don´t need to beat
me as I already play peacefully. I think I have learned here what I could and
offered my points as good as I could, for whatever that may ammount...
|
Since you believe in debate and I believe in debate one has
to wonder of what we are arguing. Perhaps you could describe the form of debate you envision so that I can figure out how I've missed the boat, so to speak. I've
dealt with your points, point by point, which is, I think, part of what debating
is about. I've offered evidence and
reasoning, and I've pretty much kept it civil.
That I haven't agreed with you may give evidence that I'm motivated to
win, but it also may be that I just find your arguments unclear, illogical,
confused or some other thing which blocks me from seeing them clearly. That I find them that way may or may not
reflect your presentation of them, but that's one of the reasons we debate...to
clarify and organize things so that we can see both sides.
Anyway, if you look closely at your points most of them revolve
not around if intimidation by threats of coercion are good for the game, but
mostly around why I should shut up and listen to my peers regarding the
matter. You see, you haven't really
debated the question exclusively and often gotten side-tracked by the issue of
my character or performance. I hate to
say this but truth isn't decided by a popularity contest. Truth stand as truth even if nobody knows it.
So do try to understand that if we are trying to debate two
things at one time things might get a bit confusing. And when that happens debate is
difficult. Maybe you can return and, as
you did in the opening of your latest post, the one to which I am point by
point responding, we can make some progress toward a resolution of the
question: "is unnecessary intimidation by threats of coercion good for the
game?" Or maybe you have a better
statement of what you think is being debated. |
|
|
Sargon
New Poster
Joined: 24 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 32
|
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 29 Feb 2016 at 11:32 |
Hey AJ
"While in almost all of your reply you do not address the logic of what I'm saying and thus, do not answer my challenge. "
Oher players an I myself did so repeatedly, and it is getting extremly annoying to hear your haughty rumblings about others not doing so, obviously your conviction to do the right thing is impairing your abilities to actually engage and understand other human beings in a non-authoritarian way.
One last time the short version for you:
A) Even you yourself acceded to the fact that not all threats are bad and wrong, therefore your premise is reduced to "some instances of threats are bad", so your conclusion that landclaiming by threats is bad isn´t forcing and necessary anymore.
B) Even if we would agree that generally threats are bad, almost everyone here disagreed to its (full) application in games, especially ones with war implemented in them anyways. Your only argument for that is a study showing some sort of bad influence while ignoring the studies showing that on a socienal level there is no percievable negative effect of gaming so far. So you are jumping again from a 'some' to a general statement, again highly doubtful performance on your side.
C) Even if it would be applyable in games in general (what more or less everyone denied), it is quite obvious that the level of threat applied in Illy so far is extremly low, that is why you try to drive your points home with big extrapolations and not the actual reality here so far, while only latter would be a forceful basis for arguments...
"You claim that I'm "alone" and that therefore I should refrain from any further discussion of the matter as, being alone, should be sufficient evidence that I'm wrong to get me to stop."
I did this because of two reasons:
A) Rightness and wrongness in a debate and argument are never ever decided by the main acteurs in it while still disagreeing. On the small scale it is decided by the onlookers, and in the long run by the history of effect. Aristotle wasn´t a good philosopher because he thought so about himself, but because other thought so and had recourse to his arguments and methods. Obviously we can´t wait 1-2 generations to see wich side works out better and has more effect, bystanders are also a shaky thing here, so I think the ones joining the debate without directly being targeted (like peaceful Angrim, trainingalliance Joda and small harmless newby me) are a reasonable indicator of how well you are doing. If people that are close to what you wish everyone to do (refraining from lan dclaims and threats) don´t agree with your argumentation, a big suprise and a re-evaluation of your assumptions should be a way more effective way to reach your goals than to declare them irrational... Right now it is like someone calling for worldpeace in such a bad way that even amnesty international, doctors against the proliferation of atom bombs and journalists without boundaries are against him instead of just the dictators and the weapons lobby...
B) Even if you are right, your performance can still hurt your case, so that a certain ammount of decorum is better for your cause than an ongoing struggle that annoys more and more people. So it was more a stop-doing-it-because-you-are-right. And as I said, I appreciate peacefulness, I am just afraid your performance hurts the case for an as peaceful game as possible...
"In addition you claim that I do not understand my opponents. Au contraire mon ami,"
Well, if you understand someone is in the end decided by him/her and not you. Directly and indirectly it was stated above by others and now directly by me: I don´t think that you totally get my points, and usually you skip the ones I deem quite strong...
"You seem to want to make the discussion about a claim you think I'm making that my moral starting points are universal. But I don't claim that at all. I would be, in good Socratic imitation, satisfied if you and my opponents in this debate were to ascribe to my major and minor premises.I began with these premises because I did, and do in fact, believe you and my opponents do ascribe to them."
See above, but just to declare it again, I don´t ascribe to your premise, because I think it is wrong, not from the intent (wrong intent is quite rarely a problem in my experience, and I have studied in the humanities, so I had to deal with a lot of debates and opinions by historical acteurs and modern scholars) but from the extent you want to give it.
"They don't believe in a real debate"
Well, I certainly do, but obviously not in a way you do, as you are making it into a game that is about winning instead of actually engaging the minds of other persons. And with that you can consider me out of this debate, I don´t need to win, you don´t need to beat me as I already play peacefully. I think I have learned here what I could and offered my points as good as I could, for whatever that may ammount...
|
|
Thexion
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 258
|
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 Feb 2016 at 16:36 |
|
People playing a game form social
agreement to accept it rules and the consequences. Its not about
internet or about online its about games. I'm sure everyone can imagine
lot sports and games where certain level of physical damage or
emotional hurt is accepted. There is no need for debate is the game real
every one knows what is real and what is part of the game, it can cause
emotions and that is real but its within the consequences that players
should
accept. Sandbox game gives people a range of ways to play and when it is
about city building, diplomacy and society building "threats and
coercion" are one type of tools and as it is said society (and
diplomacy)
contains lot of legitimized threats and coercion. Player can always
claim that they are not playing that game or did not accept those
consequences but if the game mechanism allowed it and its within the
rules its part of the game they did. To be clear in my opinion play any
game in manner that's sole purpose is to cause pain or damage to someone
is not morally right even if the game allows such behavior.
Slippery
slope arguments about threats and coercion (and many other things)
don't work. First of all there are too many ifs to be logical argument.
Its more about trying to reflect fear on others which is rational
perhaps but its not logical. Perhaps you should read from the forums
history what happened to mal motchans when they tried to force people
actually to do something which is way different from just warning people
from doing something.
Argument that Land claiming is bad
because it limits the settling rights of players given by game mechanics
is bad one. Because its very selective on the game mechanics. Argument
leaves out that there are several mechanics that allow players to limit
other players ability to found and/or decide where other player can have
a city. Therefore its within players rights to do so, deny that would
limit players rights given by the mechanics if you follow the same
logic. (For forcing players to do something there is no mechanism for example.)
|
|
JodaMyth
Greenhorn
Joined: 29 Jul 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 62
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 Feb 2016 at 15:57 |
ajqtrz wrote:
I'm very glad that GTA (I assume) has not turned you into a car thief. I will rest assured tonight that my car is safe. However, you confuse specific actions with attitudes and claim that because you don't engage in a specific action the game is not having an affect upon your attitudes and thus will have no effect on other related actions.
Again, the jury is still out as to the effects of on-line gaming on off-line behaviors.
|
The game I was referring to was Just Cause.. most recently the 3rd in that series. I understand what you are trying to say here but am confident that my attitude in general hasn't changed from the game since it is there for enjoyment or amusement. If "the jury is still out" don't present it as fact.
ajqtrz wrote:
Should all those who get frightened at horror movies, or on roller coasters, or bungee jumping seek professional help? The problem here is not that I haven't given ample evidence that the player is present in the game, it's more that you don't want them to be so because it opens a whole can of worms regarding morality and how you treat real people. You don't wish there to be any interaction between the "real" world and the "game world" because then players can just go along doing things in the imaginary world they wouldn't do in the "real" one while pretending that the harm they cause people is their own fault and that therefore, they are the ones who should seek "professional help." Pretending other players are not real is a far more serious thing than pretending an imaginary city is real.
|
Horror movies are designed to scare you, bungee jumping and roller coasters do still have a very small risk of something awful happening. Those things can be understandably scary depending on the person. It is not a matter of forgetting that the other players are real people, everyone joined the game understanding that it is a game. Playing with the mindset of nothing bad could ever happen to you in the game is in itself a flawed thought for a game that has PvP aspects in it. There are a lot of games that do not have PvP that type of player could possibly enjoy more. Even if you play the way you want picking flowers and singing songs or whatever it is you do, you are still in a potential war area and shouldn't be surprised to be caught up in one.
Everyone is playing the same game called Illyriad, they might play it differently but it is still the same game. I'm sure you will call it a sandbox and say you have the right to play how you want, which is fine, but your characters in game have 0 rights, they are property of Illyriad and can be wiped out on the whims of a dev if so desired.  |
|
ajqtrz
Postmaster
Joined: 24 May 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 500
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Feb 2016 at 20:00 |
Sargon,
I thought about a point by point discussion, but here's the summary of what I think you are doing in your last post and why I think it's probably not the best way to proceed.
While in almost all of your reply you do not address the logic of what I'm
saying and thus, do not answer my challenge.
What you do though, is interesting.
First, you appeal to my sense of community. You claim that I'm "alone" and that
therefore I should refrain from any further discussion of the matter as, being
alone, should be sufficient evidence that I'm wrong to get me to stop. Sadly, in an intellectual debate the number
of people on one side of an issue versus the other is not considered a fully
logical reason to award the "win" to the larger side. Thus, reluctantly, since the logic and
reasoning I use is so strong, I must refrain from the implied course of action. I do think reasoning, logic and evidence are
the prime reasons to rationally decide anything.
In addition you claim that I do not understand my
opponents. Au contraire mon ami, I have
laid out on at least one occasion the logic of my opponents, requested their
comments to correct my assumptions, received two important corrections, and
then, after incorporating said corrections, refuted those points one by one. If I did not understand my opponents I'm
quite certain they would have objected more strongly to my original
description, but since the did not, I can only conclude that I do, in fact,
understand their arguments. But of
course, I must also say, I strongly disagree with them, and have taken the time
and effort to drive the whole debate back to something like "first
principles."
Another point. You claim I am alone. But, my friend, why would I need any other to
join me in this discourse since I'm obviously able and willing to handle this
small thing myself? You don't send a
team of experts to fix something if one will do, and thus, this whole debate
has been left in my capable hands.
Furthermore, you may think I'm alone, but the number of comments I've
received via IGM tells me very much that I am not. Not even close. Fortunately, my participation is not
something dependent upon a popularity vote, for indeed, then I might be in
trouble. But who knows, if we had a
method of voting up or down it would be an interesting experiment, would it
not?
And another. You seem
to want to make the discussion about a claim you think I'm making that my moral
starting points are universal. But I
don't claim that at all. I would be, in
good Socratic imitation, satisfied if you and my opponents in this debate were
to ascribe to my major and minor premises.
I began with these premises because I did, and do in fact, believe you
and my opponents do ascribe to them.
Thus, there is not need for universality since I am not trying to
convince everybody, but only those in Illyriad.
The proper response to my logic would be to tell me to which of the
major or minor premises you disagree and then to discuss why you think that
premise wrong. That would move the
discussion forward. Any discussion of if
the premises are universal is, in my opinion, a red herring.
You are correct that some people do use a technique of
"name calling" as a form of expressing their dislike of another
person. I do not use that technique as I
believe simply saying "I don't like you" sufficient for the job and
much more clear. On the other hand, if I
find a person stealing my car and describe him to the cops as a "car
thief" I am not calling him a name, I'm describing his occupation basted
upon his actions. If he feels unjustly criticized
by my using the phrase "car thief" he must demonstrate that he wasn't
stealing my car. Thus, if someone
ascribes to a set of premises and is shown how logic based upon those premises irrefutably
arrives at a conclusion and they decided that they still do not believe the
conclusion, that is simply irrational behavior and they are being
irrational. That it's not nice to call
somebody "irrational" may be true if there is no reason to bring
their irrationality up. But when they
are claiming that they are being rational and that claim has led to a real
impact on you, it is unfair to them to allow them to continue in the delusion
that they are being rational. It is
unfair to them, you yourself, and to everyone to let irrationality which is
having an impact remain hidden. So, it's
not I who am calling them irrational, it's their refusal to follow the logic to
where it leads or to show why the premises upon which that logic is bases is
wrong and how the better premises they provide lead to a different conclusion.
Stances may be legitimate or not. The definition is: " conforming to the
law or to rules." Sadly the things
my opponents display and you wish me to take as legitimate do not follow the
rules of logic or good sound reasoning at all.
Thus, for me to take them as such would be an irrational act as it would
be calling something by a name to which it cannot be ascribed. If I called a cat, "dog" you would
consider me silly. The same goes with
calling illegitimate arguments legitimate. You don't make a cat bark by calling it a dog.
But at the core of all your objections are not the arguments
I put forth, but the social proprieties of my putting forth my arguments so
strongly and in not "pulling my punches". This is why people react to my writings with
such vigor. They don't believe in a real
debate at all but want politeness to prevail.
It's sort of ironic isn't it? The
same people who choose to use intimidation by threats of coercion, a most
impolite tactic, insist that in a debate on the use of intimidation by threats
of coercion, must be polite and respectful.
Polite and respectful.
These are, in a debate, important.
The tone of the debate, if it's to be a good debate, should be
respectful, polite when necessary, and as free of unsubstantiated personal "attacks"
as possible. However, sometimes, to move
the actual debate along you must force your opponent to be rational by revealing how they are being irrational. It's necessary when
your opponent will not directly engage in a discussion of the premises you've
put forth or the logic but insists on side issues of the propriety of you
holding their feet to the fire, as it were.
I choose to hold my opponents feet to the fire and insist they take up
the points I've made and show where either the premises are incorrect or the
logic faulty. That they have not
attempted, as you have not attempted, to do so, I believe gives the ground to
my side of the debate. And since I have
chosen to make this debate about the use of intimidation by threats of coercion
in Illyriad and if they are pragmatically and morally acceptable, they lose by
not addressing the issues.
So in the end, your reply is not about intimidation by
threats of coercion, but about my appropriate or inappropriate behaviors. I might suggest we return to the actual
debate and that you, as you are quite capable of doing, take up the premises of
my argument and address them. Everything
else is a bit of a waste of time.
AJ
|
|
Tweet
