Why Preach?

Angrim wrote: wrapping up with this, i thought these two accusations would be better refuted by gathering the context. ajqtrz wrote: Angrim wrote: ajqtrz wrote: Angrim wrote: If I call you a warrior is that name calling or descriptive?  If you call me a "peacenik" is that name calling or descriptive?  In either case, the name probably reflects the truth of our stances. you must be joking. eCrow has never been in a war, so i would be a warrior? and you, who call for armed intervention on a preemptive basis against land-claiming alliances, are the "peacenik"? and you wonder that i call your language into question. "If" precedes the sentence "If I call you ....."  A conditional is important and to ignore it and go off on me is sort of proof that you aren't reading what I am saying, but what you think I'm going to say. emphasis added. so your aside asserts these names are "the truth of our stances", then you hide behind the conditional of the prior sentences. which of us is not reading what you've written? I do apologize.  I focused on the "if" and did not read the entire quote.  I did, in fact, infer you were a "warrior" and was wrong to do so.  My only excuse is that I took the evidence I had (sketchy at best) and extrapolated to the wrong conclusion.  But the point still stands.  If I were to call a warrior by the term "warrior" does that constitute a name or name-calling?  If that person IS a warrior then naming he or she as such is NOT name-calling because it's only recognizing the truth of the label.  Name calling, I think, is when you apply a derogatory name to a person without sufficient warrant from their actions and words.  By "sufficient warrant" I means that you can directly align their words and actions with the definition of the name you call them.  If you can't do that, you are, name calling. Again, I apologize that I applied the term "warrior" to you directly.  Of course, being a "warrior" is not derogatory (is it?) so no insult could be implied (lucky me, I dodged a bullet on that one..LOL).

ajqtrz wrote: Angrim wrote: ajqtrz wrote: Angrim wrote: I do believe that the majority has the sovereignty.  That is the nature of the sandbox.  You either discuss, argue and debate until one side is seen as having the superior argument, or you stop debating and take up arms, which is very, very sad.  I prefer to keep going as the longer I argue the less strident and better my opponents get at actually answering the logic of my position rather then stooping to ad hominem remarks. and the implication here is that we all ought to find sad what you find sad. there is nothing about the sandbox, real or figurative, that implies a majority rule. majority rule is a creature of government, and by definition there is no government endemic to the sandbox. your argument here is nonsensical. You can read into things what is there and what is not.  I'm not sure how you got "we all ought to find sad what you find sad" from the preceding paragraph. I stated what I felt.  Again you find in my statements what you expect to find rather than what was said.  Do try to do a closer reading of the text. you dismiss the taking up of arms as a valid position because you find it sad. it is given no more consideration as a valid action. you also do not say "i find it sad", you say "it is sad", which is a statement of equivalency in the middle of your argument. it seems reasonable that, if you include it as part of your argument, that your gambit here is to pour scorn on an alternative that you find distasteful (emotional appeal). so, in short i got what i got from what you wrote. should i assume when i encounter something that contains no logic that you intend it to be an aside? perhaps your argument is not designed to be examined at this level? again, which of us is not reading what you've written? the game grants one the ability to war. if you believe, as you have asserted, that there is some ethical right associated with abilities the game grants, then distinguishing between war and settlement (for example) is really just a matter of personal preference. the precedence of those two rights is certainly not ordered by the game, it is ordered arbitrarily by you to suit your play style, or the "common" values of the west, or whatever ethical framework you have imposed to get you there...but it is *not* imposed on the rest of us by logic.

Again you caught me.  I must have been half asleep when I replied...sigh.  In any case, though, do you think it isn't sad when two sides are debating and one decides to punch the other in the face?  (metaphorically speaking as there are no "faces" in Illy to really punch...thankfully]  And if you don't think it's sad, do you think that it's proper?  And if you think it's proper to escalate from words to force, upon what recognized code of conduct or moral principle?  While I screwed up the sentence by not qualifying the feeling as my own, probably out of a notion that all felt the same way, logically it was a mistake.

Actually I'm glad you have pointed out my errors.  I'm not surprised I made them. I make all sorts of errors.  Which is why I prefer syllogisms.  An error in a syllogism is easy to spot and if you can't get the conclusion from a set of syllogisms there is probably some error you are making in your logic.

I have been duly chastised for my screw ups.  I recognize that you are quite capable of reading the text closely and that I, on the other hand, need to read my own more closely before posting, and before responding to criticism, lest my own hypocrisy show...no surprise there either.   [emphasis added to insure you understand that I am as sincere as I know how to be and that no sarcasm or whatever, is meant by this.]

Along those  lines though, I have a true story.

When I was 11 years old we lived on a farm 7 miles from the closest paved road.  Our farm had a well and naturally, a pump to draw the water.  We had seven kids at the time and my father was a farm hand making minimum wage, so there wasn't a lot of money.  One day at the beginning of August the pump died.  It could not be repaired and we had no money with which to purchase another.  All of which meant spending a good deal of the day hauling water from either the "crick" (as we called it then) for the livestock or from our nearest neighbor a mile or so away for ourselves.  We did this for days and days while my parents tried to save the money for a new pump.  It was going to be a long, hot, summer.

In those days nobody thought it bad to toss things out in the local "dump", which happened to be fifty feet down a steep bank on the "crick" about 1/2 mile from our home.  Being kids we often played in the dump, curious to see if we could find any "treasure."

One day in mid-August I was there and found, surprise, surprise, a water pump.  I didn't know if it worked or not but figured it might have the parts my Dad needed to fix ours.  So I pushed it up the bank and with a lot of effort dragged it the 1/2 mile home.  My Dad was in the house and when I went in and told him I found a pump, he immediately asked, "where?"  I told him and will never forget the disappointed look he had when he found it came from the dump.  But instead of rejecting it out of hand, he came out to the barn and looked at it.  It didn't have anything he could use, but it did have a frayed power cable.  He fixed that and it worked!  It fit perfectly in place of the old one and we had water again.

Now I ask you, if something comes out of the dump does it mean that it is automatically bad?  Does the dump make the thing bad or is it just assumed it's bad because it comes out of a dump.  Most people assume that coming out of  a dump it must be bad so they don't examine it for themselves.  Instead they slap a "bad" label on it and tell everybody it's bad.  And if  they are even told it it came from the dump (as versus knowing of the dump from which it came) it doesn't matter how shiny it is, they usually won't take the time to examine it either.  But if they actually look at it, and judge it for what it is on it's own merits, sometimes it turns out to be in pretty good shape.

Lately I've felt a bit like everybody wishes to tell me I'm the dump and that therefore nothing good can come out of me.  Maybe I'm a "dumpy" kind of guy.  Maybe my style of debate is "dumpy."  But given the circumstances why not analyze my arguments and address them rather than the messenger dressed in sloppy clothing?  I've laid out the logic.  I've laid out the premises.  I've even given you the points of attack....the things to look for to show that the "pump" don't work, if you will....but people still wish to talk about the "dump."  I find that sad.  Maybe you should find it sad too?

But of course, "I don't have the time to read....." seems to precede a lot of replies lately.  Since the average person reads between six and ten times faster than they write I'm surprised that the very same persons have the time to respond to my posts.  Now if I could only get them to write some syllogisms which are really quite short.

And finally, in response to:

Angrim wrote: the game grants one the ability to war. if you believe, as you have asserted, that there is some ethical right associated with abilities the game grants, then distinguishing between war and settlement (for example) is really just a matter of personal preference. the precedence of those two rights is certainly not ordered by the game, it is ordered arbitrarily by you to suit your play style, or the "common" values of the west, or whatever ethical framework you have imposed to get you there...but it is *not* imposed on the rest of us by logic.

Here's the thing, the game does grant a right to make war, but also the right to refrain from war.  When you have to equal choices you can choose.  Settlement too is a choice.  You can settle more than the opening city (of which you have no choice), or have just that one.  But those are of a different class of choices than the right to settle anywhere and the right to make war against anybody.  The game grants those, but they are not required rights.  Both can be exercised or not.  The game grants you the right to make war against anybody.  The game allows you to settle in any place you so desire (except on certain spaces and occupied places of course).  Both are rights granted.  But when two people try to exercise two conflicting rights in the same space they often come into conflict.  One way of resolving the conflict is for one side to deny the right of the other side.  That is why land claimers use intimidation by threats of coercion.  The other side insists that the right of settlement be maintained.   The first group overtly says they will use force to maintain their right but claim it is necessary to their plans (which is false and has been shown to be so), the second implies force may be used in resisting the threat of force overtly stated in the intimidation by threats of coercion.  So it appears that the conflict is not resolvable without the use of force...unless....

I've been arguing for months now that there is a compromise available.  In a compromise situation both sides give a little to gain a lot.  Land claimers could give up the claim of "absolute sovereignty" the use of "intimidation by threats of coercion" implies, and still accomplish their goals within the accepted, apparently intended, methods of claiming sovereignty, and non-land claimers could recognize the homelands of the claimers (which in my opinion would resolve 99% of any conflicts).  This would be the peaceful and logical resolution since the other way makes the conflict escalate and has all sorts of long term and short term consequences that are, in my opinion, harmful to the player of Illyriad.

As for what logic imposes, read the syllogisms.  They begin with generally recognized moral principles and go straight to "it is wrong to use intimidation by threats of coercion" in claiming land.  Your claim that it isn't logical is clearly shown to be false by any standard of logic you care to use.  It is true, of course, that if you don't believe in "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "do no unnecessary harm," then we will not come to a peaceful resolution of this matter.  But based upon those two, the logic is about as good as these things get.  So do you wish to deny those two premises as the bases of how we players should treat each other?

AJ



Edited by ajqtrz - 06 Feb 2016 at 17:28

ajqtrz wrote: Angrim wrote: the game grants one the ability to war. if you believe, as you have asserted, that there is some ethical right associated with abilities the game grants, then distinguishing between war and settlement (for example) is really just a matter of personal preference. the precedence of those two rights is certainly not ordered by the game, it is ordered arbitrarily by you to suit your play style, or the "common" values of the west, or whatever ethical framework you have imposed to get you there...but it is *not* imposed on the rest of us by logic. Here's the thing, the game does grant a right to make war, but also the right to refrain from war.  When you have to equal choices you can choose.  Settlement too is a choice.  You can settle more than the opening city (of which you have no choice), or have just that one.

not quite right. one can choose not to make war, but one cannot decline war, and that is intentional and important to the dynamic. (this is the reason why the original BL idea of having an imposed peace in the western BL was abandoned by the devs. it is not a workable arrangement.) so while settlement is a choice by one player for himself, war must be a choice by one player for another. you may wish to consider war as the "normal" relationship between two players, as does the game. if two neutral armies collide they will fight one another. it takes a special arrangement to make them coexist, which is a quite an effective metaphor for the larger game.

ajqtrz wrote: But those are of a different class of choices than the right to settle anywhere and the right to make war against anybody.  The game grants those, but they are not required rights.  Both can be exercised or not.  The game grants you the right to make war against anybody.  The game allows you to settle in any place you so desire (except on certain spaces and occupied places of course).  Both are rights granted.  But when two people try to exercise two conflicting rights in the same space they often come into conflict.  One way of resolving the conflict is for one side to deny the right of the other side.  That is why land claimers use intimidation by threats of coercion.  The other side insists that the right of settlement be maintained.   The first group overtly says they will use force to maintain their right but claim it is necessary to their plans (which is false and has been shown to be so), the second implies force may be used in resisting the threat of force overtly stated in the intimidation by threats of coercion.  So it appears that the conflict is not resolvable without the use of force.

you make a distinction here where i do not see one. coercion is used inevitably by both sides in a settlement conflict. one side asserts a right to settle, the other asserts a right to clear. one threatens to attack the other threatens to defend (both attempts at intimidation). perhaps they agree to a compromise involving some exchange of goods, or perhaps they war. but these are the mechanisms of conflict, and they do not change depending on who is in the right or in what way the space was "claimed" before settlement.

ajqtrz wrote: ..unless....I've been arguing for months now that there is a compromise available.  In a compromise situation both sides give a little to gain a lot.  Land claimers could give up the claim of "absolute sovereignty" the use of "intimidation by threats of coercion" implies, and still accomplish their goals within the accepted, apparently intended, methods of claiming sovereignty, and non-land claimers could recognize the homelands of the claimers (which in my opinion would resolve 99% of any conflicts).  This would be the peaceful and logical resolution since the other way makes the conflict escalate and has all sorts of long term and short term consequences that are, in my opinion, harmful to the player of Illyriad.

if the land-claimers believed that the existing system offered them this opportunity on the same scale, they would not have gone through the tremendous difficulty they have to establish an alternative. ("apparently intended" i reject utterly as biased language. the devs never intended a 10-square rule, as they have said repeatedly here in this forum, and similarly H? has owned the idea as their own.)
as a parallel, the 10-square rule was created by H? because it did not believe the existing system of simply claiming land using sovereignty offered them enough room to expand and prosper. the reaction was *exactly the same as the reaction has been to the land-claimers*, with the exception that no one was in a position to challenge H? militarily.

ajqtrz wrote: As for what logic imposes, read the syllogisms.  They begin with generally recognized moral principles and go straight to "it is wrong to use intimidation by threats of coercion" in claiming land.  Your claim that it isn't logical is clearly shown to be false by any standard of logic you care to use.  It is true, of course, that if you don't believe in "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "do no unnecessary harm," then we will not come to a peaceful resolution of this matter.  But based upon those two, the logic is about as good as these things get.  So do you wish to deny those two premises as the bases of how we players should treat each other?

surely you know i have read them, and i have picked them apart for you. whether or not i personally agree with your premises is immaterial; the premises are not in themselves logical or self-evident, and i object strenuously to your imposing them on others. beyond that, your syllogism is as damning of the 10-square rule as it is of land-claiming; beyond *that*, there is a case to be made from it that players haven't the moral right to defend sovereignty (since they are not compelled to do so by the game and doing so causes "unnecessary" harm), and that undermines the very nature of the game.

fundamentally, you are here arguing for your own ethical priorities rather than for anything you are likely to compel someone to through logic. why do you preach? because preaching is an exhortation not based on logic but based on common values, conviction and faith. so preach on if you like. i haven't any desire to muzzle you from your opinion, but when you shame, blame and insult players for not agreeing with you, you use the very tactics you condemn in others.

Gragnog wrote: This is from the mouth of Kaggen. If you do not like us land claimers join SHARK, wait, they have already been destroyed, join Unbowed and try do something about it. All your whining here will not change the fact that land claimers are here to stay and you will be hard pressed to rid the game of them. There are 2 distinct regions in this game and if you so fear us land claimers best you move your cities back to elgea where you can play your way.

If I were interested in my own welfare and having a big safe empire and not about the game itself I'd have followed suit and made my own land claim when my alliance was a bit larger.  That's the difference between those who would use intimidation by threats of coercion and those who would not.  Those who want to use that tactic think they can't do otherwise and "win" their game (though all the mechanics of the game say otherwise) and don't really concern themselves with making the game better for ALL players, and those of us who, in the long tradition of Illy DO care about the heart and soul of this playground...concern for others that they keep their freedom to play the game the way they wish.  If we follow this route you propose why would we not then start harvesting newb's if it was too our advantage?   If you play the game strictly to your advantage and ignore the health of the game you get an unhealthy game....there are plenty of those types of games out there.  It is with good reason the Illyriad community is though of as one of the most friendly communities out there. We take our duties as players of Illyriad seriously, especially in maintaining an open sandbox.

Let me tell you a story.  When Lords of Ultima started each server had vast areas to settle.  Long before an area filled up new areas were opened until all the continents were open for settlement.  When it first started things were pretty open.  But within a year smart players discovered two things: 1) their was strength in clustering, and 2) they could use intimidation by threats of coercion to claim whole continents.  They did both.  Soon their "GC" was silent except for pretty much constant trash talk.  Few players ventured into that pit.  Wars were rampant and sometimes vicious. And us "peaceniks" had to submit or be crushed. 

In that "winning" became defined by the aggressive types as "being the first, second or third to "crown"-- which is just a set of conditions the developers put forward as "winning"  a set that you didn't even need an alliance to do..."solo crowning" was rare but I saw it twice and was attempting it on W56 myself.  But those who used intimidation by threats of coercion, in place of the actual game mechanics, dominated by following up and actually coercing when necessary. 

Here's the danger.  LoU is dead and gone because while they could attract new players, they couldn't keep them.  They couldn't keep them because the intimidation by threats of coercion meant that once they got to relatively small size they would be coerced into whatever role the dominant alliances wanted them to play.  In that atmosphere revenues fell and eventually the game folded.  I fought there as I'm fighting here now.  I've experienced the destruction of one game and I would like to avoid another.  The reason people left there was because they didn't like the intimidation by threats of coercion the claiming of whole continents made possible.  They didn't like the negative and constant trash talk that the attitude of intimidation by threats of coercion brings with it and is demonstrated in how people talk to each other.  And they too often landed on or wanted to land on those claimed continents but were not free if they were there and not free to land should they wish to do so.  In the end it was not the in ability of the game to attract new players, it was the inability of it to keep players because for a game to be financially healthy it is not the new players who fork out the cash, it's the long term and committed players.  Once you begin to make the place less friendly the retention rate drops and so do the revenues.

You see, it's not me I'm worried about. It's you. It's every player, land claimer or not, who likes playing this game.  I invested years of effort in LoU.  I spent real money and had, and still have, friends.  I hope to say I still have friends here and those who have been a bit unfriendly lately will eventually return to being friendly.  But most of all I do not wish this game to go the way of the last where clustering was enforced by overt intimidation.

I hope this helps you understand that it's not about me, it's about the heart and soul of Illyriad, all it's great and fun players and the freedom of the sandbox.

AJ




Edited by ajqtrz - 07 Feb 2016 at 17:41

To be brutally honest, this game is nothing like LoU and never will be. Yes there are people who do not like conflict and there are those who do. I have been in this game for a long time now and the only things that have changed are the following:

1. The last server war set the mindset of people against PvP because the victors were so brutal in the destruction of accounts that people are afraid. These same people are the ones who oppose land claims. Lets face it, the land claims alliances have not once asked for unreasonable peace terms in any conflicts they have been involved in. They have even said they will keep conflicts in BL thus giving people in Elgea peace and comfort without fear.

2. Over the years the devs have become less and less interested in the game with nothing really new or exciting happening that would keep people in the game. Tournaments are now a myth that new players have heard of but never seen. The only thing financing the little bit of development we see are the current wars that bring in a bit of prestige money for them. Without BL and their ways there would be very little money flowing into this game as there is no point to get cities built up and ready for conflict. People at peace and who socialize in GC and craft have no need for prestige as it does not affect their way of playing.

3. This is just a game and the community is pretty friendly, even though it is a tiny game with very few active players. There just is not the numbers you need and the time to build and wage war too long for it to evolve into anything like the pay to win games.

Thus what I am saying is get off your soapbox and just play the game or leave. Your fears and concerns do not apply to Illyriad.

Yeah its not my or anyone elses job to make the game fun for anyone else but myself. It is a game that I am playing to get some perhaps minor break from my crappy pointless life.

It would be impossible to have a fun game otherwise anyway.