Meta Discussion

Brandmeister, as usual, has come up with a very good analysis.  But when he says my view is "is wholly impractical to maintain" he gives away the game.  You see, if you read my comments I keep coming up with what OUGHT to be the case, not what IS the case.  Obviously what IS the case for a lot of people is acceptable, even advantageous.  To crooks the fact that they can break into a garage and steal my car is advantageous.  But is it ethical?  I keep asking, and ask again: "If Illy players are real people, how OUGHT they be treated."  Of course, if you attempt to answer that question with honesty you will fall short of saying they should be treated with the disrespect bullying treats them.

Now as for the meta-game / game part of his analysis, it's very good.  However, in most games, including your own competitive ones, there are limits to what you can socially do and what you cannot.  I might suggest that if your poker game devolved into a brawl you would no longer play poker with those guys, or at least would instigate some social rules about what can and cannot be done/said as part of the game.  In most social situations we receive feedback regarding our behaviors in more or less incremental degrees.  A frown, some silence, a look, all reflect how what you just did or said has affected your standing, or you relationships to the others around the table.  And you usually adjust your behavior in accordance to those social boundaries.  In Illy our avatars can't easily communicate with such subtleties.  So we use words.

Now the use of words, Brandmeister seems to think, is part of the game, and I agree.  But just as there are in game socially acceptable rules (he describes it as, "I would construe rude accusations as a breach of interpersonal social etiquette") we disagree that "competitive consequences as a completely valid action within the game.")  So we have a point of contention. 

Now the question is one of validity.  Is it valid to respond in a game to the comments in the meta-game?  The answer, surprisingly, is "sometimes yes."  "If "trash talk" is part of some cultures and social arrangements, then probably it's okay.  However, in situations where you don't know that it is because you don't know the people with whom you are dealing, or there are so many of them in the competition that you can't assume you aren't going to offend somebody, needless trash talk, is probably not respectful of the larger community.   And since respect is how we SHOULD treat others, "trash talk" should NOT be acceptable to anyone in Illy.  In fact the rules of  GC are meant to avoid needless offense and no doubt even Rikoo would step in if it got to a certain point (though I would suggest he shouldn't if he wants to be consistent in allowing "aggressive game play").  But of course, this misses the actual point Brandmeister is trying to make, right?  He's not asking if "trash talk" should be allowed or to what degree, but if it should be responded to with in game options.

To start with, Brandmeisters assertion that "the game as the primarily competitive interaction" is begging the question.  In a sandbox environment you may compete with others for some goal or resource, or you may go off in a corner and compete, basically, with only yourself.  That's the nature of the sandbox.  One of the points of contention between myself and others is that I wish to allow those who wish to play "solo" (for lack of a better term perhaps) to do so.  Land claims impinge upon their rights and thus are not respectful to them.  But this too, doesn't really address the question Brandmeister raises.  I think, to be fair, the question might be phrased: "SHOULD the comments made (strictly speaking) "outside the game," result in "punishment" within the game?

First, that depends on the comments I would think.  As Brandmeister says, "disagreeable remarks toward me" are, I assume, remarks denigrating him as a real person.  Or, as he puts it elsewhere, "rude accusations."  The key here is that the comments are "rude" and "disagreeable remarks toward me."  By putting forth the worst case scenario, Brandmeister makes a straw man of the argument.  (Before you say I've done the same, think carefully as you may find what appears to be a "straw man" is actually not...walk carefully here, very carefully).    By using the worst case scenario he seems to think it covers the entire corpus of words said in the game or in the "metagame" (forums and the like).  But we are not speaking of "rude" or "disagreeable remarks" toward another, but actual reasonably civil points made in a discussion or debate.  By exaggerating the nature of the remarks that would trigger in game retaliation Brandmeister performs a slight of hand (inadvertently I would suppose).  So, given that the comments are civil and reasonable, does he think it acceptable to use in game mechanics to "punish" his debating opponent?

Debate is a social thing.  Two or more people using words to.... what?  Usually to either win their point or to illuminate a subject...or both.  If the words fail to do what they wish, is it acceptable to then choose a different weapon? Again, not "will they choose a different weapon (for some will and some won't) but SHOULD they do so?  In the long history of humans in general most societies thought words should be used to resolve linguistic differences of opinion and not swords.  Yes, there were times and places where swords were used.  But we do not look at those times and places with pride for a reason.  For when reason fails we are back to being just animals.

And finally, "It has never been suggested that systematically defeating someone at Risk has any real life ethical implications, even in the absence of rowdy table talk" only leaves me with two observations: first Risk is a game of hours and thus the "pain" of being defeated is the loss of a few hours AND it's a war game...thus you expect to be defeated or not.  Illy is not a war game but a game where each person can choose how they wish to play it and as long as they respect the other players (something I think land claiming does not do), they are free to make war or not, as they choose.  Second Illy takes a lot more time and energy than RISK and thus, when you lose what you have often spent years building because somebody in GC thought your opinion of the Brewers was silly or in the forums you spoke your piece with general civility but they disagreed with you, that does cause more pain than a two hour RISK game in which you have been told what it means to win or lose. 

My point about Monopoly was not about a game, but a social interaction.  In social interactions it is not acceptable to reach out an punch somebody when they speak civilly and with reason, even if you don't like what they say.  Again we OUGHT to respect those who respect us and since a civil and reasonable statement is the most respectful method of communication we OUGHT to refrain from punishment in game or out.  That's respect. 

AJ

To elaborate further, neither the Monopoly or poker examples are valid because punching someone in the face is not a game mechanism.  Your whole argument is flawed around this point.  For the poker example, it's more like bluffing really well and winning all your friends' money.  It may piss them off, but it's an acceptable strategy within the game.  If you don't like it, work to improve your own game.  Learn his tells. Or in Illy build some armies!

Jane, "bluffing" in poker is a recognized strategy.  Any book on poker will discuss it.  Bullying is not a game mechanic nor a recognized strategy in any game and in many places the devs have tried to put rules into things to avoid rude and obnoxious behaviors.  Bullying is rude and obnoxious.  Now if you want to discuss why and in what way land claims are NOT bullying, go ahead.  Take a good shot at it.  Sadly you have yet to answer the basic question, so here it is (again):  "If Illy players are real people how OUGHT they be treated?" 
 
And Princess Botchface, you have accused me of sophistry and stated that you "can hardly stand to do more than skim your windy false equivalencies" but you don't take the time to refute them?  That's just lazy thinking in my book.  So here I'll lay one out for you and you use the space to show how the two situations are significantly non equivocal.

A bunch of real people around a board game.  They are playing a game of spaces and one person declares that, "from now on none of you can land on that space or I'll make it my job to run you out of the game."  Some people, and perhaps you, will see it as perfectly acceptable.  But here's the problem: it's intimidation by threats of coercion.  The game says all players can land on that space.  The game determines what can and cannot be done.  The players use of intimidation by threatening coercion to keep people off that space is using social means to influence in-game results.  The game does not mention such behaviors.  It does not say, "claim as many spaces as you can and intimidate by threats of coercion" if you can.  It's part of what Jane calls the "meta-game."  Right?

Why do you think all those players are sitting around that giant board?  To have fun?  I think that's a pretty clear.  When the player decided to use intimidation by threats of coercion -- a "meta-game" tactic --was he allowing everyone to have fun?  Since we assume he didn't ASK if the behavior would be okay BEFORE he made his declaration we can only assume he decided to engage in the meta-game tactic without allowing the players around the table to express their wishes.  When he engaged in a behavior that clearly gives him an advantage over others (assuming the space has some advantage to him) we know he is using bullying to win the game.  Now using bullying (intimidation by threats of (in game) coercion) without getting agreement by the social group, he was not respecting (or even concerning himself with respecting) the wishes they might have.

But don't take my word for it.  The designers of most games, especially mmorg's put a lot of effort into making the game as pleasant as possible.  Most games have strict rules governing how players interact.   In Illy you can't even talk about whole vast areas even if you do so civilly.  And there's a reason for that.  Most game designers want the players, all the players or as many of the players as possible, to have fun playing.  Adding intimidation by threats of (in-game) coercion when the game designers want to avoid the unpleasantness of that type of meta game experience AND seems to have gone out of the way to avoid unpleasant interactions between players, is disrespecting the players and the game itself.

Now that's our imaginary game where people are sitting across from each other.  Let's turn to Illy.  Are there many people playing Illy?  Yep.  Are they, generally speaking, sitting?  Yep.  Are they looking at the "game board" on their screen?  Yep, that too. So we have a bunch of people sitting around a very big game board playing a game in which the rules say you own a piece of property in the game when you settle that piece of property, right?  The only difference between this and the imaginary game is proximity.  Those gamers are in the same room, we are not.  Those gamers can physically hit each other, while we cannot.  Okay, two differences.  You see any more?

Proximity is only an accident of history and technology.  We could, presumably, all be playing in the same room.  So it's a pretty flimsy basis for declaring the two games different.  The physical abuse scenario holds more promise and has been put forth as a basic and fundamental difference between Illy and some imaginary real game.  But it's a false dichotomy.

First, what is pain?  Physical and psychological pain activate the same pain receptors in the brain to a large degree.  Physical pain may fade faster than psychological or not, depending on the severity and type.  Now if you bump me on the street and I fall down, I get up, brush myself off and perhaps limp for a day or two.  Painful but I heal.  Why? Because it didn't cost me much.  Some discomfort for a few days but that's it.  Now if the bump on the street sent me to a hospital and I lay in bed for months, that pain would be more severe and cost me more because I would lose more in time and energy spent.  From this we can simply say that the value of the loss influences the intensity and duration of the pain.  The more I think I've lost or have indeed lost, the more painful the experience and, presumably, the longer it lasts.  How much pain do you think a new player of Illy has when, in the first week somebody runs over them and steals all they have?  It's interesting to note that in the first year the players of Illy put a stop to robbing new players.  The players instituted a new player friendly policy and enforced it when necessary.  But that's a side line here.

By our own measure of pain, just presented, a person who is in Illy only a few days and is robbed probably feels less pain than than a person who has put a year of work into his or her account -- though the new player might be more inclined to go somewhere else, it has to be said.  But if the person who has been "removed" understands that the attack is justified, do you think it as painful as if he or she were attacked unjustly?  And if the "remover" has so little respect for the player who has had his or her cities taken, do you think the one losing the cities feels anything?  Do you think they are pained?  Annoyed?  Angry? 

So here it is.  Both the imaginary game and Illy are played around a "board" by a bunch of real people.  Both have rules about capturing a piece of real estate.  Both have players who decide on their own that they want a particular piece of real estate and are willing to intimidate by threats of coercion to get it.  Now of course, both games do allow for the person who wants the real estate to get it using certain game mechanics so there is no real need to issue the threat...unless perhaps they don't think you can compete within the game rules and capture what they want that way...then you might be tempted to impose upon other with intimidation by threats of coercion....which is the justification used by land claimers for issuing the declarations they issued.

In both you are dealing with real people.  In both something is claimed and grabbed by using intimidation by threats of coercion.  In both the use of in game punishment is threatened and in both that in game punishment is unjust and disrespectful of the players and the game itself.

Finally, Princess Botchface, what sophistry have I enacted here?  I've laid out the parallelisms and dealt with the differences to show that the two are the same thing.  I've even moved the type of "punishment" from physical to emotional to make the two games the same as much as possible AND I've dealt with the idea that some players don't mind the tactics used by the one claiming the space by intimidation. 

You have claimed sophistry.  A definition of sophistry:" the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving."  I might suggest, if you have the time to accuse, you take the time to show cause for the accusation.  Which arguments have I used that are fallacious?  Be specific as a general "lot's of them" only means you ought to be able to find one as an example.  And how do you know I intend to deceive?  That's even harder to prove one would think.

AJ

ajqtrz wrote:  Bullying is not a game mechanic nor a recognized strategy in any game and in many places the devs have tried to put rules into things to avoid rude and obnoxious behaviors.  Bullying is rude and obnoxious.

Jane DarkMagic wrote: (AJ) compares sieging someone in Illyriad with unpopular views to punching someone in the face during Monopoly.  When it's more like buying up all the ideal properties so your opponent has no choice but to pay you all their money and lose the game.