Why Preach?

Brandmeister,

A "straw man" argument is an argument in which you set up your opponents point of view with analogies that are weak, and then burn it down.  But I get what you are saying.  You think my "art" analogy does not fit the argument against land claims as a form of bullying.  But I said to Jejune, it's not if the cities are "art" or not, but that they are valued or not.  The analogy of the destroyed paintings was limited to the parallels between creation and intangible work or arrangement of pigments and pixels.  The cities in Illyriad may or may not be artistic to their creators, but they do have some value to some of those creators. 

So, because you seem to like the 'direct' approach better, lets try that.  Illyriad is an imaginary world where real people come and are represented in that digital world by their avatar.  The avatar is just a marker for the player and makes no decisions, feels nothing and does nothing.  The player is present in that world electronically to his or her avatar, controlling that avatar via keyboard, touch screen, or mouse.  The player issues commands, decides where to build and what to build and what his or her goals in the game will be.  The player has, within the bounds of the game mechanics, complete control of his or her avatar.

Having established that the player is present in the imaginary world, what are the possible outcomes for said player?  The player can make decisions about where to build a city, for one.  The game mechanics say he or she can build anywhere there is an empty location.  Thus, he or she is free to settle anywhere.

When a player settles in a spot and proceeds to build his or her city, it takes real time for the player to increase the size of the city, and it takes decisions about what to build, what to research, and in what order.  Thus, the player has an investment in time and perhaps in real money spent on prestige. 

So a player invests his time and talents in building cities.  The value he or she gets from having accomplished whatever he or she has accomplished is subjective.  Each player values his or her efforts personally. 

So far though, we've spoken of an individual player as if he or she were playing alone.  But the imaginary space called Illyriad is shared by thousands of other players.  Each has goals and each builds imaginary cities where he or she wishes for different reasons.  The complex of reasons a player uses to make decisions is probably idiosyncratic and probably no two players follow the exact same path.  Within the set of goals the players have are goals which come into conflict.  When that happens some players choose to negotiate their differences peacefully, some not.  Some players make accommodations for the differences, but a few will not.   The point is, there can be conflict.

The conflict in the game may produce wars.  It may not.  The imaginary world of Illyriad does not require warfare, but some players have the goal of proving their skills as a warrior by engaging in wars and frankly, see nothing wrong declaring war at even the most inoffensive error.  On the other hand, the imaginary world of Illyriad does not require any player to be protected from the attacks of his or her fellow players either, but most players refrain from unjustified attacks anyway.  Which brings me to the following point.

The players of Illyriad have, in effect, increased the length of the rainbow of protection AND of the restricted area a person can settle.  These may not be universally respected, but if someone does violate these rules they can expect reprisals in the form of "an eye for an eye."  It is one of the hallmarks of the community that they have increased the freedom of the small players by offering some implied protection from players who would, because they are small, take advantage of their size to intimidate them, coerce them, or otherwise bully them.  Because of these two generally accepted rules enforcement usually creates a very limited war or no war at all.

Now when it comes to land claims, the same structure is apparent.  With land claims you have groups of players playing in a way which impinges on the range of settlement of other players.    In the rule regarding how close you can settle to another player the players of Illy have established a restriction not in the game mechanics.  In a land claim a group of players are attempting to establish a restriction also not in the game mechanics.  Both attempts to establish a restriction  have been met with resistance.  The "ten square" rule prevailed because eventually everyone realized it had benefits for almost all players and thought the benefits out weighed the costs, or perhaps, the cost of fighting it.
 
In any case, land claims are a different animal.  The ten square rule pretty much benefits all equally.  The land claim rule benefits a few at the expense of the many.  The ten square rule effects only the area settled, the land claim grabs much, much larger tracts of unsettled land and thus effects the amount of land available for settlement much more.  And finally, the land claim rule is a expressly designed to intimidate by threats of coercion, while the ten square rule, like all generally accepted rules, implies coercion, but because it appears to be equally beneficial to all players, is readily accepted by most players.  This is why I support the 10 square rule and not land claims.  The 10 square rule is a benefit to all as it reduces crowding and the competition for resources, while land claims are a benefit to only a few and reduce the amount of resources (land and all the various things on it) for the rest of us.  In the end I oppose land claims because of the willingness of those who establish them to engage in acts of bullying to establish them.  No rational person can look at the definition of bullying and the threat to remove should you settle in the claimed area and not see that the actions fit the definition.  This is NOT saying that the land claimers are bully's in their offline selves, but only that they are playing the role of bully in Illyriad.

So we come to the heart of the problem.  Do we wish to allow the role of "bully" to be one of the roles a player can take in Illyriad?  Do we wish for players to use "intimidation by threats of coercion" to accomplish their goals even against the non-warriors?  And if so, to what degree and under what circumstances.

First, the role of "bully" is not a bad role if it's "just a game."  However, Illyriad is not "just a game" but a bunch of games being played in a common area.  I have heard and seen bullying in Illyriad, and seen players leave because of it.   You might be a trader and be playing some economic game.  You might be a "most cities in Illyriad" player and be focused on building large cities and a lot of them.  You might be a GC bunny and the purpose of being here is to have fun in GC.  There are all kinds of goals and thus, all kinds of "games" being played.  So it's not "just a game," it's more of a playground in which a lot of different games are being played. 
So how do we negotiate the great mix of games in Illyriad?

First, we recognize that probably all players in Illyriad just want to have fun.

Second, we recognize that conflict can happen but that with some accommodations we can avoid unnecessary conflict.

Third, we recognize that some players are here for conflict and that therefore, we need to allow for conflict.

Fourth, we recognize that fun for some players does not include conflict.

Fifth, we compromise.  Instead of using intimidation by threats of coercion against all players, we reserve those tactics for those who, by their actions, have shown that they wish to be warriors.

Sixth, we compromise.  Instead of requiring all players to be warriors, we leave the non-warrior alone to play how and where they wish without intimidation by threats of coercion.

Now to do these things the land claimers need only step back and do one thing, and that is drop the intimidation by threats of coercion and allow anyone who wishes to settle in 'their" area to settle there as long as that player has not been a warrior.  Most players are pretty clear about their intentions, and most alliances even more clear.  Certainly a "Declaration of Homeland" ought to be notice enough for other players of their intention to "claim" an area.  And if they follow up the declaration with actually settling the area, they can probably "capture" it under the 10 square rule anyway.

That's my direct answer with only a passing reference to the playground metaphor.  Hope you find it more 'direct' Brandmeister.

Now for the direct discussion regarding the freedom to speak in the forums.

First, as Belegor has said many times, "speech has consequences."  Nobody recognizes that more than I.  But the question is, what kind of speech should have what kind of consequences?

Since we are humans I appeal to the traditions by which we govern speech in the West, and a lot of other places as well. 

In the western tradition, about three hundred years ago, if you insulted somebody (at least the upper classes anyway), you could be challenged to a duel.  The basis of the challenge had to be a clear cut insult by one party toward the other, one which could not be easily explained as  bad wording or whatever.  And it had to be sufficient enough to damage the honor of the one insulted.  It was felt that the only way to repair the honor of the man was through a physical duel.  That was 300 years ago.

As the Enlightenment progressed it was recognized that a duel was not effective in answering the charges put forth by the insult.  There was still the question of if the one insulted was a cad or not.  In other words, the physical competition was measuring something that did not answer the question before the public at all.  And it was wasteful and tended to make things worse.  

So, if the wisdom of Western civilization left behind the "trial by force" as barbaric three hundred years ago, and most importantly, as ineffective in truly resolving issues, why do some in Illy still think it a good thing?

The answer to that, I think, has to be in the vision of the self people carry into Illy.  Every player I've ever met wants to win.  We are highly a competitive people and we want to come out at the end of the day as winners. 

What this means is that some people have a sense of what the "meta-rules" of the game are and what it means to truly win, that are different than others.  Just as in real life there are players in sports who will create new and sometimes questionable ways to compete, so too in Illy.  When that happens in real life, the league gets together and asks if the new method is good for the game or not and makes a rule in accordance to what they find.  A good history to read about this is the history of "Pop" Warner, who "invented" a lot of new ways to play football.

Of course Illy is more complicated as there are many, many ways to "win."  Some players think winning is controlling territory, some having a lot of cities, some having cities in every area, some being the biggest trader, player, etc, etc, etc.  My "winning" is to influence how the game is played and to change the gaming culture of Illyriad so that the positive and healthy experience of the new players is extended more to cover the small, independent, and non warring players.  In other words, to influence and expand the "good will" of the players of Illy by getting them to refrain from unnecessary and harmful attitudes and actions.  That is the "game" I'm "playing" and it, obviously, in some minor ways may interfere with other peoples goals.  But that is hardly avoidable since people insist on winning in ways I believe are unethical.

So, given that people have different definitions of what it means to win, and given that we each have a moral obligation to treat others fairly, we must, I think, refrain from doing things that un unnecessarily impinge on the goals of others.  Thus, if you have to parties whose goals are to be the most powerful warring alliance, you may have some unavoidable conflict.  But if you have one party wanting to be the biggest trading alliance, and another who wishes to be the most powerful warrior, there is no reason for the warrior to threaten the trading alliance as they are not in competition...are not playing the same game.

And one of the games some seem to like playing is debate.  Now the 'rules' of debate are not part of the game mechanics, but are governed by the developers to some degree. They do formally set rules and enforce them as to the types of things which can be said, and which cannot.  However, the players of Illy have added some restrictions too.  Thus, "debate" is a negotiated standard, which includes in some people's minds the idea that if you say something I don't like in the forums I can send my armies after you.  The problem with that is that you are forcing the debater to play a different game than he or she might wish to play.  The only proper way to win an debate is to debate.  And if both sides strive to refrain as much as possible from bad debating tactics -- ad hominem remarks come to mind,  and to acknowledge and apologize for them when they make that mistake, the harm is minimum and thus the punishment unneeded. Of course this assumes that the purpose of the punishment is reform.  If it's vengeance or revenge then obviously it's a question of propriety.  But if the offender recognizes his or her mistake and improves, shouldn't that be as much as can be required?  Repentance should be the standard of forgiveness.

More to the point is what unrestrained punishment says both about the debate and the future willingness to engage in debate.  Nobody really thinks that if you destroy a players cities you've changed anybody's mind.  Thus the issue of the debate is still there.  And if the player has changed his or her ways and refrained from further infringements then the "punishment" is accomplishing nothing but making the punisher feel better, (I suppose).  At the same time though, it discourages all but the most careful debaters as nobody wants to have their cities razed because they took the wrong tone in a debate.  The tone of the debate may be bad, but making it a rule that the tone can never be present unless the speaker is willing to lose cities, is worse.  All people have to learn how to debate properly and even those of us who have been doing it a long time can easily miss what is implied in how something is said.  The hardest person to really hear is often yourself.

If though, the goal is to 'clean up' the debate so that the debaters refrain from personal attacks, it would seem to me that there would be currently a lot more attacks being launched.  But if there are attacks being launched only toward one side, when clearly both sides have erred, then the conclusion is that the errors are just an excuse for  trying to shut up those with whom you disagree.  Mistakes in style should not be used as a cover for attacking those with whom you disagree. 

Ultimately, in a closed debate that is not published in such a manner that it can easily be ignored, there is no justification for moving the conflict from the debate to the battlefield.  In resolving any problem the only justifiable course is the one which causes the least amount of harm and accomplishes the desired goals of correcting the problem.  If the problem is one of style the first course of action is a private chat with the offender.  This is generally all it takes as if you bring good evidence of the problem and you are trusted by the person, they will recognize the problem, make amends, and change.  But if not, then you gather more evidence, gather a couple of other people the person trusts, and try again.  The testimony of a couple or more people is generally enough to wake even the most blind person to the errors of their ways, if those making the accusations do so as friends with a civil tongue and good evidence.  If people stand around shouting at the offender it's difficult for that offender to hear what is being said, especially if the shouts just include the conclusion without the evidence.  If we all stand around calling a man a thief but nobody says what he stole and how, it may be difficult for him to see that the thing he picked up by the side of the road was thieving.  And it may be difficult for the shouters to hear his explanation of why he picked up the thing beside the road.  Shouting, especially name calling, may make some people feel better, but it's not good communication.

So, in conclusion, debate is never perfect and debaters are not perfect.  By targeting only one side for correction you give the strong appearance that you aren't punishing the errors of the debaters, but the position of the debater, which only discourages anybody from speaking up.  And even if you desire to correct the behavior of the debater, the best course of action is to use appropriate methods and the least amount of force to do so.  Anything past that is probably not healthy for debate and probably unethical as well.

AJ