Why Preach?

I just find it so funny where AJ and co post something.......its aways BS that never make any sense.  

Edited by Adrian Shephard - 25 Jan 2016 at 03:08

[The following was written in response to Shulnaks' post and, because I thought his post somewhat about land claims more than anything else, intended to post this reply in the land claims discussion...only to find that the devs had closed it.  I then tried to post it here but found that the text did not word wrap properly when pasted from Word.  But I've now remedied the problem, and so here it is.  Do try to read Shulnak's well written response before this as you will miss much if you haven't.  Thanks...AJ]

Shulnak

On the subject of free speech you have a point that our speech is restricted by the devs.  But there is unbridled speech, and free speech.  The difference is that in, “unbridled speech” there are no rules.  Few to no places allow “unbridled” speech. “Free speech" is restricted in many ways by the authorities and there are layers of authority.  The devs put forth some ways, and the community of players does in other ways.  For instance, you cannot, in Illy, claim that somebody attacked you if you don’t have absolute proof.  That is a player restriction, not a developer restriction.  My point is that currently some players wish to restrict what can and cannot be said in the forums.  It’s that some things which can be said according the rules of the developers, some player wish to punish for having been said...which means they effectively wish to greatly narrow the level of free speech currently allowed.  I do hope this clarifies things for you.

When you speak of bullying you claim the definition would “dictate that any in-game attacks here may be a form of coercion.”  The definition of bullying I have been using is: “the use of intimidation by threats of coercion to force others to do as you say.”  The operative words in the sentence are “use” and "intimidation."  It’s the use of “intimidation” which relies on “threats of coercion” to “force” others to do what you wish. So it’s not about in-game attacks but about the intimidation of other players by threatening them with coercion should they not do what you wish or do what you do not wish (and of course, the implied use of force). 

However, after some thought I will give you some credit for a good point you may not have intended to imply, but did, to me anyway.  In game attacks may be of two kinds.  One player attacks another, both of whom are playing the game as a war game.  In that scenario where wars are declared and both sides are playing as warriors, it may be allowable for one side to intimidate by threats of coercion, the other.  But in the second, where a warrior attacks a non warrior (a player who has done nothing to indicate he or she wishes to play the game as a warrior) the use of intimidation by threats of coercion would be a violation of that players rights to play the game fully and freely as he or she wished.  It would be that because whatever threat the would be, it would be an restriction on the non warring player, a restriction which the developers have the right to issue, but which, I think, the players should only have the right to issue by general and pretty much complete consensus.

When you say, “attacks on your virtual holdings here are not attacks on you personally”I wonder what you would say to an artist who, having painted a bunch of paintings, wakes up one morning to find all his or her work slashed to pieces.  How do you think he or she would feel?  Of course, a painting is tangible.  Well, actually, it’s not. There is a canvas, some paint, and a frame perhaps, but the painting is the arrangement of the pigment on the page and thus, it’s really somewhat imaginary.  But even if you consider the painting itself a tangible, what is lost is not just the painting and it’s value, but also the time, the energy, and the creativity needed to create the painting.

So here we have some pixels on the page.  We click and type and go this way or that to create our kingdoms.  Sometimes it takes years and hours and hours of work  What, pray tell, is the difference between what we have created and what the painter created? Are not both a creation of a real human being? I would really like to hear your rebuttal of this point because a whole lot of my argument depends on my insistence that what we create in Illy is important to us and thus, of value to us enough that when it is destroyed we suffer.

So when you say, “A personal attack goes above and beyond what is displayed in the sandbox; attacking a person's real world gender, job, family, lifestyle choices,” you might like to add, “and creative endeavors” as well, and thus void the argument.  Which means I disagree with your definition of a personal attack.  To me it’s personal if it’s not something I signed up for and it unjustly comes to me anyway, be it in Illy or out.  And when players attack other players for disagreeing with them in the forums that is, in my opinion, even worse than attempting to restrict their allowable areas of settlement as you are then restricting what they can say in a place not directly part of the game. 

When you say, “here you are risking some digits on a screen” you are implying that those “digits on a screen” have some value, but far less than some, presumably, oil in the canvas.  But who are you to tell any player how much his or here “digits on a screen” should be worth?  If you think I'm condescending or "preachy" what is it when you assume you know the value of what something 'should' be worth to me?  This is one of those situations where it's pretty obvious who is trying to impose his valuations on others, isn't it?  The problem with measuring the value of something is that the value resides in the one valuing, not in thing itself.  So while you may value your digits on the screen (and the days, hours and months it took to make them as they are), worth little, and even my digits on the screen worth little, you have no right to tell how I should value my digits on the screen.  I may have an entirely different valuation.  Mine may be a lot higher than yours, or a lot lower.  The point is, if I value my “digits on the screen” a lot higher than you and you threaten to take those digits away if I don’t do as you say, or avoid saying what you don’t want me to say, you force me to play the game your way because I value my digits on the screen.  If I don’t you will take those “digits on the screen” away from me.  

In the real world the cities are real. In the real world when debate breaks down lives can be lost.  But in both the real world and in Illyriad something can be lost if debate isn’t free but subjected to one side or the other threatening the holdings of the other in an effort, one supposes of shutting them up.

Again, when you say, “this is a fantasy,” I have to ask if you, as you sit at your device playing Illy, are a fantasy?  The dividing line between you and your imagination doesn’t exist.  Your imagination is part of you and any imaginary situation you may find yourself in, is responded to by your body in much the same way as any situation.  The brain releases the same chemicals, the heart rate and pulse change, and so on and so on, though, generally but not always, to a lesser degree.  If it’s a fantasy entirely why do real bodies respond the way they do?  In addition, that the developers designed the game to allow warfare can not be argued.  But they also designed the game so that you could play with no warfare as well.  No player MUST engage in warfare as the goal of the game is set by each player.  My argument is that when you begin to use intimidation by threats of coercion on non-warfare players (those who have given no indication that they wish to go to war), you are forcing them to play as warriors or accept your determination of where they will play.  The same thing happens in the forums when you start attacking players for what they say in the forums.   

As for Lord of the Rings and my comments upon it, I have heard quite a number of people speak of how, after reading them, they dreamed of being more noble etc...Yours is the first time I’ve ever heard of anyone being fascinated by the Orcs, but that’s exactly my point in one way.  The human mind possess a fantastic imagination and if it’s used to reinforce negative behaviors there is a good chance that some players (out of the millions) will be more inclined to act badly.  I’ve already covered a suggested mechanism for how an online aggressive style of play might shape an adolescents view of himself or herself, so I will not repeat it here.  But I will say the current research leans in that direction.

As for what you do in your offline world, I don’t know.  But I suspect that if you engage in bullying behaviors in Illy you might find it easier to do so in the offline world.  As I’ve said before, just as an athlete envisions his or her performance and uses his or her imagination to train himself or herself to perform almost by instinct a certain way in the real competition, so too, in some minor way perhaps, we train ourselves in our gaming.  We train ourselves, to see ourselves differently and thus to respond to things in the offline world differently and that includes moral choices.  You might like to read some of the studies on moral choices in gaming and how people are effected when they play games where imaginary moral choices must be made.  Often those who make “immoral” choices have a lower view of themselves after playing “immorally” for a long period of time and are more inclined to "punish" fellow test subjects more often and with harsher punishments in the time immediately after playing one of those games.

All I’m asking is that you do not “ruthlessly impose [your] will on other people” by using intimidation by threats of coercion.  Other people come to Illyriad to play other styles. They are real people and they feel real things (even if they may feel them less intensely than some situations in the offline world).  So if, as you say, you, “have a strong aversion to causing people harm” and your actions cause people harm who wish to play a different style, why do it?  Especially if there is no necessity for causing the harm (as they are not warriors) and the goals of having a secure area for your alliance can be had within the already established rules?  Once you begin to see that what you are doing in Illyriad is you who is doing it (and not your inanimate avatar) and that it is being done to another real person, morals matter.  And once real morals matter in a game we need to determine how to be both moral and have fun.  My solution is to make war against the willing and leave the unwilling alone.  My solution allows each player the freedom to choose their own course, (one definition of what a sandbox is) within the bounds of real morality.  But I'm open to other suggestions.  Maybe you have some?

Characters created in Illy make no choices.  Period.  You, the player make the choices.  You may make them in accordance with how you feel the character you have developed would make them, but even then you are responsible for those choices.  If they harm real people it’s you who is responsible for the harm, not the pixels on the page.  When I attack NPC’s there are no real players behind those pixels so I am not doing anything but manipulating pixels on a page. 

When you say you “cannot ever agree that the avatars we see are 100% synonymous with real people” must ask why it is important that you do or do not accept that “avatars are 100% synonymous with real people?” Is it not that if the avatars are even close to 100% synonymous with the people you would be obligated to actually act morally?  There are, of course, two types of avatars: NPC’s and Players.  The NPC’s are nothing but pixels on the page and do not feel a thing.  They are inanimate.  The players, on the other hand, are represented in the game by avatars, but the avatars do not actually feel a thing either.  Because they too are inanimate objects.  So the only object which can feel, think, and control actions, is the player who is, very much a real person.  If we followed your logic and lived in the 1800’s we could justify burning anything by Mark Twain.  Mark Twain wasn’t a living person.  He had no legal status and he made no decisions.  He represented Samuel Clemens as his “pen name” (read avatar in the literary world of the day) but it was Samuel Clemens who received the royalties and who was lauded for his work.  “Mark Twain” didn’t exist except as ink on the page.  Thus, if you decided to “wipe out” all the books on the bookshelf by “Mark Twain” by your logic there would be nobody harmed as there would be real person behind the books. (Ignoring for the sake of argument all other parties having a role in the production and distribution of the books).  But if you did burn all the books by “Mark Twain” who would be hurt?  Samuel Clemens, of course.  “Mark Twain” was 100% Samuel Clemens.

So my avatar is called “Ajqtrz.”  Ajqtrz is just pixels on the page representing me, the one typing these lines. Does my avatar feel anything?  Does he think anything?  Does he make any moral choices, or make any decisions?  Of course not.  When you, attack for something that was done by an avatar, by you logic you are being irrational since avatars do nothing and thus there is no culpability.  Ajqtrz didn’t do and can’t do anything.  Didn’t speak, didn’t type, didn’t send forces here, there or anywhere, I, the player did.  So if you are attacking Ajqtrz and insist that avatars are not the players, you are attacking an innocent avatar.  But if you still feel justified for attacking the avatar is it not exactly because you assume that to attack my avatar is to attack me?  And I am, you might wish to know, a very real person.

Well, you are right that the Buddha held that this world is pretty meaningless...even an illusion.  But he also said the in spite of the illusion of desire (from which we seek to rid ourselves) we should still treat others as we would want to be treated. (Almost all great religious leaders have said this, BTW).  And if you adopt the distinction between willing warriors and non-warriors you can even make this work, as warriors want to make war and thus to make war on a warrior as a warrior is treating them as they wish to be treated. 

I don’t believe I am “continuously” claiming people are attacking [me] directly or [my] morals” but of course, they are attacking me through my cities.  That can’t be argued.  Why they are attacking is subject to some discussion but I’ll leave that for another day except to address your explanation, which is that I am “directly impinging on their enjoyment.”

First, what wars have I launched?  What armies have I sent to unsuspecting and innocent players?  I would certainly agree that those actions would be “directly impinging” on those players. To “directly impinge” would mean, I think, something they could not avoid.  Let’s see...other than a few times in GC (and usually very minor), everything I’ve done or said on the matter was and is done in the forums.  Thus, any “direct” impingement must come from their going to the forums and reading what I’ve said.  Now here’s the thing.  If you go to the forums and know that you will probably not like what I have to say or how I say it, ... why would you go except you find the "fight there" enjoyable to some degree?  The nicest thing about the forums that any 'warfare' there is freely chosen.  It would be nice if I could somehow choose to ignore those attacking me on the 'game board' but alas, there I am not offered the same choice as in the forums.  Thus, any impingement upon the enjoyment of others is indirect because it’s incidental...meaning it could have been easily avoided, and thus was a choice by the one doing the reading. 

Second, which do you think is more of an impingement upon a player’s enjoyment?  Writing something in a forum post that which can be completely ignored, or sending armies to attack a players cities because of something written in the forums?  If the attacker had the freedom to read or not and what is written does not directly impinge on the attackers cities how is it that that is impinging and directly attacking his cities is not?  All this concern for a players enjoyment is actually a good thing and the reason I’ve said a lot of what I’ve said.  It’s not enjoyable to all players to live with players who use intimidation by threats of coercion.  It’s not enjoyable to be attacked for speaking out against the use of intimidation by threats of coercion.  Who then, is directly impinging other players enjoyment?  If I plant a city in the middle of your claim and you follow through on your threat of removal, who is impinging on whom?  Last time I checked nobody elected your alliance to make the rules in that part of the world and thus, by claiming the right to do so, you directly impinge on the enjoyment of others by intimidating them with threats of coercion if they try to settle in “your” area.  Are your really concerned with impingement?  If so, drop your land claims and stop attacking people who write in the forums.  It's really that simple.

In Illyriad there have been some acceptable reasons for retaliation.  Sometimes players say things they can’t make a reasonable argument for having said...insults come to mind...and sometimes they do things like settle too close or harvest too close to somebody’s city.  These are acceptable reasons for retaliation.  But if somebody, like myself, engages in a strong argument, one with some merit, and the other side decides to retaliate by taking cities, as they have, the question is why the attackers have tried to move the battle to another venue?  Is it not that they don't have the arguments necessary to persuade the reader that they are right?  If they had the arguments, and they were as strong as they claim would it not be that they would just put them forth and let them speak for themselves.  Even if I were not convinced would not the arguments be convincing enough and thus, I'd be left shouting in the corner?  By their actions they give up the ground of the argument when they attempt to use coercion on the game board to 'win' the battle in the forums.  And I would suggest that their choice of battlefields is exactly because they have lost to the logic of their opponent but cannot bring themselves to admit it.  And they often accuse me of too much hubris. That's the problem with commitments to a cause, it often blinds you to the wrongness of that cause.  And when you compound you commitment by expanding the battle to other venues you only show that you don't think you have or can win in the forums and thus need to shift the battle to where you think you can "win."

In any case, allowing attacks on people for what they say in the forums, does say that you had better say very little to nothing in response to the actions of the larger players. In other words, keep a low profile and let the game be controlled by the desires of the warriors. That’s really the only choice once you allow intimidation by threats of retaliation in the forums. At that point you take away the sandbox and put the warrior class in charge. I’m for free sandbox where all players can do, as much as possible, what they please.  The “as much as possible” simply means they aren’t restricted from doing something that has little or no impact upon other players. 

The paragraph that says I’m “painting myself” as an “intellectual martyr” is interesting.  You see, if you knock me back to the newb ring is that not being martyred?  And if you are doing so because of my intellectual pursuits, then that would, in fact, make me an “intellectual martyr” would it not?   Even if I did have the hubris to make such a claim, which I don’t think I’ve done (except by implication, perhaps), wouldn’t my claim be substantiated?  And you claim that I wish to make the claim of being an “intellectual martyr” because “people do not respond in the fashion that wish.”  So what you are saying by that is, I think, that when people disagree with me I think they are....hmmm....taking my life (figuratively speaking to be sure)?  If that were true I’d be laughing too.  But evidence is evidence and the evidence that somebody is trying to “martyr” me is pretty strong. 

But the bigger picture is this: how do I wish others to respond to my arguments.  You would have to be pretty new to my postings to have missed this: civilly with evidence and sound reasoning on the subject being discussed, whatever it be.  Now before you get all bent out of shape, I recognize that I’m not always the best example of being civil.  Sometimes I state things which imply insults.  I did that to Belegar the other day and properly apologized.  If my opponents did the same I think things would be much better.  I’ve been called a fool, a jerk and told to shut up so often that I pretty much expect it.  But to be fair and give credit also where credit is due, even my 'enemies' occasionally compliment me in a sometimes left handed manner.  In any case I take it as normal human behavior and while I don’t like it, I don’t usually say much about it, other than to remind people that the subject is not my personality, character, style or personal hygiene, but the subject at hand.  And, for the most part, people are pretty good most of the time.

Your analogies are interesting.  In a football game both players are there and understand the rules of engagement. They can’t play baseball, they can’t have more players than eleven, etc....they are there to play football and "winning" is determined by who plays better and moves the ball past the goal line and scores the most. The game boils down to who has the better set of football skills.  The scoring is part of the game and everybody who plays freely chooses to play.  So, the characteristics of a football game may be stated as it’s a game played in a certain way with winning defined in the rules themselves.  All the players know this and, by being there, agree.  Any pain then, is a calculated risk they take and accept in joining in the game.

Illy, on the other hand, has quite a number of “rules of engagement” including NAP’s and the like, trading alliances, gathering rules, and rules about settling within ten squares of another player.  In fact, at any one time there might be hundreds of different “games” all being played in the same space.  The game mechanics are more like playground equipment than rules of the game, though that is probably a bit of an overstatement.  Why your analogy fails is that Illyriad is not designed to be, strictly speaking, a single game, but a sandbox in which players can play different games with differing goals and procedures.  The game mechanics only determine the range of games which can be played.  When I was a kid I received a large box of Lego’s  The front of the box showed a truck  Did that mean I could only build truck because that’s what the box pictured?  Illy could be considered, I think a toolbox for making different types of games, some “on the box” and some not.

As for the concert hall preacher, -- a concert hall is dedicated to the performance of music.  When I enter the hall I know this.  It is not a pulpit and thus, to miss-use the concert hall by trying to make it a pulpit is disingenuous and disrespectful.  However, Illyriad is not a concert hall and the place where I do my “preaching” is not a place where you, or anybody else, need attend.  So if you come into my “church” and I’m “preaching” what are you complaining about? If you don't like the "sermon," don't go to the 'church.'  More to the point, perhaps, is that Illy is not dedicated to a single type of game at all.  As I just observed, you design the games you play and all I ask is that, within the bounds of morality, you leave me alone to play the game my way with others who may wish to play my way.  As lolng as we are not directly impinging on you, why not avoid impinging on us?

I’m not sure of what “diversionary tactics” you are speaking, but I suppose, given that people keep dragging in my personality, my style, and land claims into every forum I post, I suppose they could be seen as “diversionary.”  But if so it’s only because people wish to continue the conversation regarding land claims and freedom to speak in the forums, but fail to post their thoughts in the right place.  And who, I might ask, is responsible for that?  [An addendum: I just found that the thread on land claims has been closed so perhaps this was and the right to post after all.  My mistake.}

Why do I do this?  I do it because I’m a sucker for sticking my neck out in an attempt to stop things that are harmful to people.  Things like bullying, censorship, and irrational thinking.  I do it because I care.  Some parts of it I do well, as you, and others, have said.  Some parts still need work.  But I do it because I care that the real people playing the game might all be treated more fairly and with equal respect.  There are, in every game I’ve played, a set of players who seem to think they need not concern themselves with their effect on other players.  They hide behind a double wall of anonymity where they pretend that it's just an avatar beating up another avatar when, in fact, they are one human, often unjustly being mean and disrespectful to another.

And why do I do it here?  Because here is where those type of players exist and here is there is a more mature gaming community who may be persuadable to stop those kinds of behaviors and make this game better for all.  An here is where I am, having started this fight in LOU, and thus, here is where the battle is (once more) joined.

AJ

PS, I said it once and I’ll say it again, in my opinion you are a fine writer, a very fine writer.  Keep it up.

aj

Belegar, how nice of you to return to the 'frey'

Verbal attacks are just that.  Verbal.  Nobody has to read these things, and unlike an army sent to your city, they can be avoided.  Don't really know why people insist on putting themselves through these things, but they do.  You have any reason you could offer?

As for being personally attacked I would only ask that you review the record and see from where the vast majority of clear and consistent attacks are coming.  As you well know, whenever I have made a mistake and it is pointed out to me that such is the case, I apologize and try harder to not repeat it.  What more can be done in a civil manner, I do not know.  Do you have any suggestions?  Perhaps a period of silence would be appropriate?  But sadly, some people do have hard time accepting apologies and insist on a pound of flesh for every easily band-aided scratch. 

Of course there is also a question of sheer evidence.  If you decide to play basketball against an NBA star you better bring your a game.  To get mad and stomp off the floor because he clearly, and even gently, whips you, is just bad sportsmanship, don't you think?  Of course, if you think the score unclear well, then you may have a beef, but the way to settle that is not to go out and key his car, but to ask for a rematch...and bring your "A game" next time.

No, they come to Illy and may or may not know there are armies.  They may or may not, but they find out pretty fast that there are.  In fact, if the first question they asked is, "will I be attacked unjustly" they have probably experienced the warriors in other games less protective of their new players.  I would say that the same willingness to leave the new players alone ought to be extended to anyone who arrives and does not wish to go to war.  In addition, they are told that they can pursue any course they wish....but of course, only if they also promise to keep their mouth shut and never, never criticize what others are doing...oh, no, those big warriors SAY you may do as you wish, but then use intimidation, retaliation and coercion to keep everybody in line.

I'm glad they place great value in what they post here.  But remember, they don't have to post it in my threads, do they?  And they don't have to read them either.  And I don't promise I won't critique their posts when posted in my threads either.  If anyone has paid attention to what I write they will see I praise as often as I blame.  I only wish others would follow suit.  (I appreciate Shulnak and a couple of others for that as they do seem to appreciate some of the things I say and even how I say them).  In the end you could argue, of course, that these threads are not mine.  But no one is forced to keep company with me here in the threads where I post, so why do they?  I keep asking why they read and respond when all it would take to end any forum controversy is to do nothing.

As for a person having his words laid bare and feeling hurt, I'm truly sorry that such happens.  But a "debate" is supposed to show the weaknesses and strengths of each side of the issue.  I suspect we would have fewer problems if I were to keep that in mind more often and think about some of the things I'm implying by some of my comments.  Alas, I cannot do anything in the past, but the future holds some hope for improvement.  The problem for me is that I insist on the logic I use and when others try to use logic that is, to me, irrational or inappropriate I am quick to rebut their point of view, often too strongly and with too much force.  I keep forgetting we are not professional debaters and thus, should not expect perfection.  A gentler hand will be forthcoming...just so you know.

Actually, the warrior class is very much running round bludgeoning players...not new ones because the community has already determined that that shall not be.  But they are running round bludgeoning those who disagree with them, though, to be fair to them, it may as much because of the unnecessary force used as it is the disagreements.  But of course one cannot tell for certain as there is no way to go back and undo the damage...sigh.

I have no beef with the warrior class if they leave the other classes alone and not drag them into battle.  Let the battle of words be what it is and the winner be the winner.  When you change venues of attack you are only admitting you've been bested in the first venue.  Sadly that is lesson warriors do not heed very often and it causes a lot of grief to the non-warriors.  The cross over between the forums and the game field is not a logical one either way unless, in the forums you have clearly and repeated, and without regret, done damage to the reputation of another player needlessly.  That's a lot of qualifiers but unfortunately many people think debate has to be a group of warm and fuzzy hugs and never a raised voice.  I take the road that says, try as much to be civil, but recognize that people will get excited and make mistakes.  Then I only ask that they recognize their mistakes, apologize for them, learn from them, and move on.

It's not the size of the armies, it's the difference between the forces one one side and the forces on the other.  To play competitively as a non-warrior, you don't wish to spend your resources on armies of any real size.  Thus, as you well know, when a large player or two decide to attack a small player it's not a fair fight, and if it's done even when that small player has done nothing on the game board to warrant that attack, it's just not nice.  And that is a moral judgment.

As for moral judgments and condescension, I plead guilty to both to some degree.  Since it's impossible to NOT make moral judgments (the very idea that I shouldn't make them is, itself a moral judgment), what can I say?  That I insist on making moral distinctions and labeling things with words reflecting their actual structure of existence...in other words I call it like the dictionary defines it...well, if a person doesn't wish to be labeled a thief they should keep their hand out of my cookie jar.   It's not the label that makes the thief a thief, its the thieving.  And if the land claimers engage in acts of "intimidation by threats of coercion" it's not me who is making them bullies.  I'm just putting the proper label on the actions.

Now before everybody jumps on me, think about it.  If you want to come to Illy and play the bully, why is it wrong if you are just bullying other avatars?  Hmmm...?  And if you are just bullying pixels on the page, why be mad when I say you are a bully?  It is illogical to say an act is amoral and then be all mad when the act is labeled for what the dictionary says it is.  My saying that land claimers re bullies is not a moral judgment if bullying is just an imaginary act performed against imaginary avatars by other imaginary avatars.  But of course, the problem is that you, and everybody else, doesn't really buy the idea that "it's all imaginary" and "just a game."  Your own choices as players, to be so upset that you begin to hate the imaginary avatar called "aj" proves that you, a real person, are present in the game, and you, the real person, is mad, angry, frustrated and willing to send your armies against a small player who, on the board, is not a threat and has never been a threat to anybody. 

And if you are here, in Illy, and you are harming the other player's here by intimidation or by attempts are coercion or unjustified retaliation you are wrong.  That's a moral judgment you can take to the bank.

As for condescension, I suspect you are right to a degree, but also wrong.  I don't have an attitude of patronizing and disdain, but when I write the tone of my words does often project that attitude.  Again, I can only work on it and will do so.  Thanks to all for pointing it out more clearly in the last few days.  To those to whom I've written and inadvertently displayed (and on occasion, to be honest, probably meant to display) that attitude, I am sorry.  Take courage and hope for my improvement, as I too will courageously push to be a better steward of the gifts I've been given, some of which play here in Illy.

AJ

PS  Belegar I'm not sure why you would think I'd ignore you, as I'm too much the preacher to let a good opportunity to speak pass by and have no real reason to not speak to you anyway, present disposition of forces notwithstanding.
aj

Our approaches to the game clearly differ on fundamental levels, aj, and I don't believe either of our values are likely to change through argument. With that in mind, all I can really offer is a clearer outline of my stance and a rebuttal of a few of your points.

I believe that anyone entering this fictional universe is by definition suspending their disbelief, agreeing to act upon and abide by different rules [rules as in strict mechanical limitations; player-made conventions are not rules in the same sense as they can be defied so long as mechanics allow it] and thus practicing a degree of separation, whether they agree they are or not.

I view the stories and characters that unfold here with a degree of detachment; the same way I might view a novel, or a play, or my characters in the multiplayer role-playing games I used to play. Incidentally, over-attachment to characters and an unwillingness to accept risk, change and loss were very frequent causes of boredom, narrative stagnation, and general unpleasantness in these interactive games. I see some of this in Illyriad, too.

You're right, in a sense: I refuse to accept avatars as real people because I would rather think that anyone who has signed up to build a city in a game that allows for destruction and hostility [as opposed to playing another, similar game that does not have such features] has some modicum of self-control and restraint to say, "Yeah, OK, it's just a game, and I did put myself in a position where this could happen."

If they lack the ability to do that, or have the audacity to claim ignorance in the face of a blindingly obvious and illustrated feature that comes part and parcel with the game, then I frankly have no sympathy for the pain they might suffer when those things are lost.

That said, I still agree with the notion of the 'honourable warrior caste' being worth pursuing over all-encompassing hostility, but acts such as SIN's aggressive enforcement of its Fellandire land claim I see as cultivating an area of Illyriad that allows for competitive and conflict-oriented players to play as they wish. "Like it or leave" is a sentiment I've seen you attack before in the context of land claims, but it's the very reason many PvPers chose to flock to the BL in the first place; to take risks, encourage conflict, and play by different standards.

True freedom can be a double edged sword, and so it is that any who wish to alter Illyriad to better fit their style of play is engaging in conflict and imposition of their values, whether by word or deed. Personally I wouldn't have it any other way, but it makes hypocrites of those who claim to defend freedom, and then condemn those who use that freedom in ways that they do not agree with.

You would be naieve to believe the enforced peace of Elgea and the protection of newbs continues to be maintained by anything other than the threat of military force for any aggressors deemed unjustified by the community; should a sufficiently potent military group rise in the old world with different ideals, or should future updates inspire greater competition between alliances, the game might yet "fall" to the warlords who today wear farmer's clothing, and we'll be given another reminder of just how thin the veneer of civility is.

Whatever the outcome, it would all be an entertaining twist in the narrative to me, and the actions of individuals would not signify a lack of moral fibre that demands soul scrutiny unless they were, again, venomously attacking things that are not designed to be attacked via in-game mechanics. [aforementioned insulting of players]

How each individual chooses to approach the game, and what they value in it, is as varied as the paths available to each player here, but I think any attempts to divert or detract from the diversity of playstyles in the sandbox are only going to make the game overall less colourful. That the Broken Lands' burgeoning military scene and more peaceful ""free"" world of Elgea could co-exist is not beyond the realms of possibility, though I know a few who would scoff at that. And there will, of course, be casualties.


Edited by Shûl-nak - 26 Jan 2016 at 16:31

The other philosophical problem here is that two "art-forms" or "expression forms" are being compared that exist in spheres that are governed by vastly different rules and ethics. In the visual or literary arts, artists and writers present and publish their works in a milieu where -- absent of a fascist-style book burning or rare, random act of defacement -- their art will not be involuntarily destroyed. In the art community, there is no custom, cultural artifact, or provision for one artist to destroy another artist's works.