Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
   New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - When Gaming Gets Personal
   FAQ FAQ   Forum Search    Register Register   Login Login

When Gaming Gets Personal
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1112131415>
Author
   Topic Search Topic Search   Topic Options Topic Options
Sargon View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 32 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sargon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Feb 2016 at 14:41
Hello AJ

Sorry for the delay, first I was busy and then we had the first nice sunny warm day of the year here. And I am too dumb to find out how to quote here...

" The thing is, when one considers his or her audience, it is important to start with premises you believe to which they ascribe"

Indeed, but I think it has been repeatedly shown that they are not universally shared here, no one took your side so far, and even totally peaceful players like Angrim or me that in playstyle share your approach didn´t take your side in the argument, because we don´t share the premises or think them to be universal. After so many pages still believing to have universal premises and the others to have irrational views instead of acceding to have 'just' particular views (not even necessarily wrong ones), might lead to frustration on the other side though... You said you belief others here to have minds capable of rational thinking, trying to understand them instead of lecturing them what their rational minds should think might way more be percieved as actually believing in the rational capabilities of these persons and caring for them...

And as I said in my first post, even our founding fathers/parents thought morals and law not suited to unanimously decisions even in full-time judges, so I think it is quite overidealistic to work in moral issues with premises that are thought to be universal and arguments/syllogisms that should be forceful and compelling.

" can only conclude that they are acting irrationally"

As said above, it should maybe cross your mind, that the premise maybe wasn´t shared after all, that the definitions and their applications were different. Shouldn´t that even be your first thought if you belief in the rational capabilities of the opponent instead in just your own? Searching the 'faults' so persistently just at the other side might be percieved as very haughty...

" Do I call them names?"

I might be overintelectualizing here, but why calling someone a motherf***er doesn´t entail that he or she actually did it, it is just a fancy version of a perfectly legit i-don´t-like-you, while accusing other persons of having irrational views is a statement of what they actually do/have. At least for me the latter is obviously worse, especially if it is being used in the middle of the debate and not at the very end of it, first is just a disinterest in hermeneutics, latter is usually the result of a failure in hermeneutics...

" rationality is king"

In a quite egalitarian environment like a internetforum, having no kings and trying to understand others before judging them might be way more effective. As said above, running around already knowing what the premises of your opponents are and what their conclusions should be without at any point showing any willingness to really understand the opponent and  to consider their definitions and stances to be legit too    is obviously offensive to quite a bunch of persons here. 5 or 6 years ago I wouldn´t have bothered talking to you because it would just have annoyed me way to much. I got a thick fur over the last years, so it doesn´t bother me much any more, but I can still totally understand anyone here being pissed of by this behaviour. 

I enjoy persons having opinions, but there are points, when you should let opinions be opinions and just go on. There might be cases where it is great if someone fights on, but I guess doing it in an environment where after weeks one is literally still alone should be a good incentive to let it be. (That doesn´t mean I think you are wrong, I just think from the behaviour of the people you are talking with you should arrive at the conclusion, that you are not helping your case. And yeah, I am as 'mean' here as you usually are with having in mind a conclusion for the opponent to arrive at)

"   I use evidence, reasoning, and analogies. "

Well, one of the main problems as I see it is that you use principles and projetions way more than the concrete realities here. You speak of threats, coercions and attacks on freedom when mainly all this is about so far is a view on a map and to see a few arreas that you can´t settle in (way easier to andle than the 10 squares rule anyways). You need the clearcutness of those abstracta for your syllogistics, but the realities for the majority of the players just don´t lead to these scenario you are painting (understandably that you paint it as you are in a war against some landclaimers, but it is mainly just you having this problem)

" I do believe that my posts say that their arguments are "against logic" not they themselves."

If we are prone to identify with imagined avatars in games, then it shouldn´t suprise you if some are identifying themselfs quite strongly with the real and actual views the hold...

" You are, again, correct, that the basis of all legal societies is that of the right of enforcement.  That is jurisdiction.  The land claimers have claimed jurisdiction"

Jupp, but with this specification of some threats of coercion to be acceptable you yourself have shattered the universality of your first premise. That is in the end the only point I really wanted to make.

" Why then, is it so hard to accept the idea that if you practice using intimidation by threats of coercion in a game that you will find it easier to use the same outside the game?  The thing which mediates while present in the game is the conscious mind.  But if you practice something long enough you bypass the conscious mind and respond as you have practiced.  But of course this is, to some degree, an overstatement."

Well, so far we have a society with a youth playing all thoise violent games and a sinking crime rate and a few studies showing a limited influence on the behaviour. So even if you totally accept the 2nd part, the 'proofs' for a non-problematical effect on  a societal level are also there, and that is why even the persons that are habitual lawgivers haven´t shown much inclination to restrict freedom in  gameplay next to some restrictures on age. So while even the persons prone to restric freedoms through law haven´t seen a necessity to act, you have a hell of  a job trying to persuade others to restrict their own freedom. The big big difference between reality and game is still present for most persons here obviously, especially when they play shootergames and in reallife don´t even ever have seen a real weapon outside the military/police area (more true for europe than the USA I guess^^)

And I think you might even agree that persons usually shouldn´t act against what their empiric experience. And this experience especially for the modern youth is, that war games don´t make you a murderer or a criminal or an unfriendly person. That is a simple inter-subjetive everydayperception for them, you will have extreme problems to 'disproof'. Almost every nice male person my age or younger played those games to a certain degree, and they are still habitually nice persons... And I don´t play those games not out of moral reservations, but because my reactiontimes are waaaaay to slow to be good at those^^

" But the studies have shown that people who practice violent activities in gaming do exhibit an increased willingness to cause pain to others."

In constructed, even game-like scenarios, on a societal level we have a proof for sinking level of crimes and caused pain...

"   All social relationships have restrictions if the social relationship is to be maintained. "

Jupp, and I see this restriction pragmatically at work here, as there are only limited ammounts of landclaims around. I don´t particulary like landclaims, but obviously many players can live with them as long as they are not allencompassing...

" or is it common sense to think that if you play in a playground you will be free of others using intimidation by threats of coercion against you."

So far it is only used against those that don´t care to have a look on a forum map, so at least I don´t have a real problem with it as long as it makes other people happy, I grant them that 2 minutes of my time to look if I can settle in that particular area or not...

" I'm for the maximum fun for the maximum persons"

Me too^^ That is why I think the landclaiming as it is practiced right now is totally legitimate in my view.

" Finally, on a different note.  You seem to think I've gone "overboard" in my critique of intimidation by threats of coercion.   That I've written a lot, is obvious. "

Well, the overboard was mainly meant pragmatically, mainly you have caused alienation by your works, so just from the effects you had, it was obviously not sucessful, and I think it is due to the ammount/the many different times you tried again and again to force your views through (instead of trying 2-3 times and then let it be), and the minimal amount of respect for maybe totally legit differences in stances and opinions.




Back to Top
Jax View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Location: nyc
Status: Offline
Points: 55 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Feb 2016 at 20:58
Gaming has the same affects as porn imo, they both turn me on. Is that too personal?  
Back to Top
ajqtrz View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 24 May 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 500 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ajqtrz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Feb 2016 at 19:24
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

Originally posted by JodaMyth JodaMyth wrote:

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

 
     Now of course you could say, "I'm practicing this in a game where it is allowed" but if you did, that would be the rational part of you mind reminding you that what you are practicing belongs only in the game.  Sadly, the more you practice the less likely your mind is to remind you that it's only allowed in a game.

    Over the years I have stolen countless cars and killed more "people" than I can count in games. Should I be concerned about turning into a car stealing murderer because of these actions?  Angry

 After a bit under 2 years of Illy I've never went outside and thought, "My neighbor is too close, I should get some catapults to destroy his house"  or attempted to build a collection of thieves to plunder the surrounding area.  I have not tried to do any mining or harvest herbs growing wildly. I would think the same applies to the ones who have played for more years than myself or across various games for decades.


I'm very glad that GTA (I assume) has not turned you into a car thief.  I will rest assured tonight that my car is safe.  However, you confuse specific actions with attitudes and claim that because you don't engage in a specific action the game is not having an affect upon your attitudes and thus will have no effect on other related actions.

If you take the average person and put them in a violent gaming environment for a few hours, when they come out they will inflict more pain on another subject than if they had not played the game.  This is a test that has been done over and over.  In other words, if you practice insensitivity to others in a game where the insensitivity can be extreme, you will find yourself less sensitive to the pain of others immediately after the game when in the off line world.  How long the effect lasts and how significant the change may be a product of the length of time you've played and the duration of your sessions.  Scientists are still trying to figure that out.  

Thus, while your personal experience has not had an extreme effect upon you, causing you to go out and steal cars, it may have had some short-term effects of which you are not aware.  BUT before you go get to upset, do remember that the effects may be positive as well.  Again, the jury is still out as to the effects of on-line gaming on off-line behaviors.


Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

Originally posted by JodaMyth JodaMyth wrote:


If you cannot differentiate in game actions from real life experiences or impulses then you may want to seek professional help.  


Sadly there is just too much evidence to simply pretend their is a magical wall between on-line and off line "worlds."  I suspect it's because the differences are pretty thin.  Take, for instance, a horror movie.  You know the monster isn't real.  Your intellect tells you it can't come off the screen and eat you, but your body still reacts and you still get frightened...the same chemicals are released in our brain as would have been if you had been in a truly dangerous situation. 

Should all those who get frightened at horror movies, or on roller coasters, or bungee jumping seek professional help?  The problem here is not that I haven't given ample evidence that the player is present in the game, it's more that you don't want them to be so because it opens a whole can of worms regarding morality and how you treat real people.  You don't wish there to be any interaction between the "real" world and the "game world" because then players can just go along doing things in the imaginary world they wouldn't do in the "real" one while pretending that the harm they cause people is their own fault and that therefore, they are the ones who should seek "professional help."  Pretending other players are not real is a far more serious thing than pretending an imaginary city is real.  If you forget real players are real people and are present in the game you risk doing unnecessary real harm to a real person. 


Originally posted by JodaMyth JodaMyth wrote:


In regards to the game from previous pages on this thread, I took a page out of your playbook and have declared myself the winner.  Clap  
 I hope you are graceful in defeat. 


It's quite easy to be graceful in defeat when you are playing different games.  The nicest thing about Illyriad is that if you are left alone to play whatever game you wish, you can generally win without declaring anybody else a loser. 

AJ

Back to Top
ajqtrz View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 24 May 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 500 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ajqtrz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2016 at 20:00

Sargon,

I thought about a point by point discussion, but here's the summary of what I think you are doing in your last post and why I think it's probably not the best way to proceed.

While in almost all of your reply you do not address the logic of what I'm saying and thus, do not answer my challenge.  What you do though, is interesting.

First, you appeal to my sense of community.  You claim that I'm "alone" and that therefore I should refrain from any further discussion of the matter as, being alone, should be sufficient evidence that I'm wrong to get me to stop.  Sadly, in an intellectual debate the number of people on one side of an issue versus the other is not considered a fully logical reason to award the "win" to the larger side.  Thus, reluctantly, since the logic and reasoning I use is so strong, I must refrain from the implied course of action.  I do think reasoning, logic and evidence are the prime reasons to rationally decide anything.

In addition you claim that I do not understand my opponents.  Au contraire mon ami, I have laid out on at least one occasion the logic of my opponents, requested their comments to correct my assumptions, received two important corrections, and then, after incorporating said corrections, refuted those points one by one.  If I did not understand my opponents I'm quite certain they would have objected more strongly to my original description, but since the did not, I can only conclude that I do, in fact, understand their arguments.  But of course, I must also say, I strongly disagree with them, and have taken the time and effort to drive the whole debate back to something like "first principles."

Another point. You claim I am alone.  But, my friend, why would I need any other to join me in this discourse since I'm obviously able and willing to handle this small thing myself?  You don't send a team of experts to fix something if one will do, and thus, this whole debate has been left in my capable hands.  Furthermore, you may think I'm alone, but the number of comments I've received via IGM tells me very much that I am not.  Not even close.  Fortunately, my participation is not something dependent upon a popularity vote, for indeed, then I might be in trouble.  But who knows, if we had a method of voting up or down it would be an interesting experiment, would it not?

And another.  You seem to want to make the discussion about a claim you think I'm making that my moral starting points are universal.  But I don't claim that at all.  I would be, in good Socratic imitation, satisfied if you and my opponents in this debate were to ascribe to my major and minor premises.  I began with these premises because I did, and do in fact, believe you and my opponents do ascribe to them.  Thus, there is not need for universality since I am not trying to convince everybody, but only those in Illyriad.  The proper response to my logic would be to tell me to which of the major or minor premises you disagree and then to discuss why you think that premise wrong.  That would move the discussion forward.  Any discussion of if the premises are universal is, in my opinion, a red herring.

You are correct that some people do use a technique of "name calling" as a form of expressing their dislike of another person.  I do not use that technique as I believe simply saying "I don't like you" sufficient for the job and much more clear.  On the other hand, if I find a person stealing my car and describe him to the cops as a "car thief" I am not calling him a name, I'm describing his occupation basted upon his actions.  If he feels unjustly criticized by my using the phrase "car thief" he must demonstrate that he wasn't stealing my car.  Thus, if someone ascribes to a set of premises and is shown how logic based upon those premises irrefutably arrives at a conclusion and they decided that they still do not believe the conclusion, that is simply irrational behavior and they are being irrational.  That it's not nice to call somebody "irrational" may be true if there is no reason to bring their irrationality up.  But when they are claiming that they are being rational and that claim has led to a real impact on you, it is unfair to them to allow them to continue in the delusion that they are being rational.  It is unfair to them, you yourself, and to everyone to let irrationality which is having an impact remain hidden.  So, it's not I who am calling them irrational, it's their refusal to follow the logic to where it leads or to show why the premises upon which that logic is bases is wrong and how the better premises they provide lead to a different conclusion.

Stances may be legitimate or not.  The definition is: " conforming to the law or to rules."  Sadly the things my opponents display and you wish me to take as legitimate do not follow the rules of logic or good sound reasoning at all.  Thus, for me to take them as such would be an irrational act as it would be calling something by a name to which it cannot be ascribed.  If I called a cat, "dog" you would consider me silly.  The same goes with calling  illegitimate  arguments legitimate.  You don't make a cat bark by calling it a dog.

But at the core of all your objections are not the arguments I put forth, but the social proprieties of my putting forth my arguments so strongly and in not "pulling my punches".  This is why people react to my writings with such vigor.  They don't believe in a real debate at all but want politeness to prevail.  It's sort of ironic isn't it?  The same people who choose to use intimidation by threats of coercion, a most impolite tactic, insist that in a debate on the use of intimidation by threats of coercion, must be polite and respectful. 

Polite and respectful.  These are, in a debate, important.  The tone of the debate, if it's to be a good debate, should be respectful, polite when necessary, and as free of unsubstantiated personal "attacks" as possible.  However, sometimes, to move the actual debate along you must force your opponent to be rational by revealing how they are being irrational.  It's necessary when your opponent will not directly engage in a discussion of the premises you've put forth or the logic but insists on side issues of the propriety of you holding their feet to the fire, as it were.  I choose to hold my opponents feet to the fire and insist they take up the points I've made and show where either the premises are incorrect or the logic faulty.  That they have not attempted, as you have not attempted, to do so, I believe gives the ground to my side of the debate.  And since I have chosen to make this debate about the use of intimidation by threats of coercion in Illyriad and if they are pragmatically and morally acceptable, they lose by not addressing the issues.

So in the end, your reply is not about intimidation by threats of coercion, but about my appropriate or inappropriate behaviors.  I might suggest we return to the actual debate and that you, as you are quite capable of doing, take up the premises of my argument and address them.  Everything else is a bit of a waste of time.

AJ
Back to Top
JodaMyth View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 29 Jul 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 62 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JodaMyth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2016 at 15:57
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

I'm very glad that GTA (I assume) has not turned you into a car thief.  I will rest assured tonight that my car is safe.  However, you confuse specific actions with attitudes and claim that because you don't engage in a specific action the game is not having an affect upon your attitudes and thus will have no effect on other related actions.

  Again, the jury is still out as to the effects of on-line gaming on off-line behaviors.



   The game I was referring to was Just Cause.. most recently the 3rd in that series. I understand what you are trying to say here but am confident that my attitude in general hasn't changed from the game since it is there for enjoyment or amusement.  If "the jury is still out" don't present it as fact. 

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

   Should all those who get frightened at horror movies, or on roller coasters, or bungee jumping seek professional help?  The problem here is not that I haven't given ample evidence that the player is present in the game, it's more that you don't want them to be so because it opens a whole can of worms regarding morality and how you treat real people.  You don't wish there to be any interaction between the "real" world and the "game world" because then players can just go along doing things in the imaginary world they wouldn't do in the "real" one while pretending that the harm they cause people is their own fault and that therefore, they are the ones who should seek "professional help."  Pretending other players are not real is a far more serious thing than pretending an imaginary city is real. 

 
   Horror movies are designed to scare you, bungee jumping and roller coasters do still have a very small risk of something awful happening. Those things can be understandably scary depending on the person. It is not a matter of forgetting that the other players are real people, everyone joined the game understanding that it is a game. Playing with the mindset of nothing bad could ever happen to you in the game is in itself a flawed thought for a game that has PvP aspects in it. There are a lot of games that do not have PvP that type of player could possibly enjoy more. Even if you play the way you want picking flowers and singing songs or whatever it is you do, you are still in a potential war area and shouldn't be surprised to be caught up in one.

      Everyone is playing the same game called Illyriad, they might play it differently but it is still the same game. I'm sure you will call it a sandbox and say you have the right to play how you want, which is fine, but your characters in game have 0 rights, they are property of Illyriad and can be wiped out on the whims of a dev if so desired.  Shocked
Back to Top
Thexion View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 258 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Thexion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2016 at 16:36
People playing a game form social agreement to accept it rules and the consequences. Its not about internet or about online its about games.  I'm sure everyone can imagine lot sports and games where certain level of physical damage or emotional hurt is accepted. There is no need for debate is the game real every one knows what is real and what is part of the game, it can cause emotions and that is real but its within the consequences that players should accept. Sandbox game gives people a range of ways to play and when it is about city building, diplomacy and society building "threats and coercion" are one type of tools and as it is said society (and diplomacy) contains lot of legitimized threats and coercion. Player can always claim that they are not playing that game or did not accept those consequences but if the game mechanism allowed it and its within the rules its part of the game they did. To be clear in my opinion play any game in manner that's sole purpose is to cause pain or damage to someone is not morally right even if the game allows such behavior.

Slippery slope arguments about threats and coercion (and many other things) don't work. First of all there are too many ifs to be logical argument. Its more about trying to reflect fear on others which is rational perhaps but its not logical. Perhaps you should read from the forums history what happened to mal motchans when they tried to force people actually to do something which is way different from just warning people from doing something. 

Argument that Land claiming is bad because it limits the settling rights of players given by game mechanics is bad one. Because its very selective on the game mechanics. Argument leaves out that there are several mechanics that allow players to limit other players ability to found and/or decide where other player can have a city. Therefore its within players rights to do so, deny that would limit players rights given by the mechanics if you follow the same logic. (For forcing players to do something there is no mechanism for example.)
Back to Top
Sargon View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 32 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Sargon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2016 at 11:32
Hey AJ

" While in almost all of your reply you do not address the logic of what I'm saying and thus, do not answer my challenge.  "

Oher players an I myself  did so repeatedly, and it is getting extremly annoying to hear your haughty rumblings about others not doing so, obviously your conviction to do the right thing is impairing your abilities to actually engage and understand other human beings in a non-authoritarian way. 

One last time the short version for you:

A) Even you yourself acceded to the fact that not all threats are bad and wrong, therefore your premise is reduced to "some instances of threats are bad", so your conclusion that landclaiming by threats is bad isn´t forcing and necessary anymore.

B) Even if we would agree that generally threats are bad, almost everyone here disagreed to its (full) application in games, especially ones with war implemented in them anyways. Your only argument for that is a study showing some sort of bad influence while ignoring the studies showing that on a socienal level there is no percievable negative effect of gaming so far. So you are jumping again from a 'some' to a general statement, again highly doubtful performance on your side.

C) Even if it would be applyable in games in general (what more or less everyone denied), it is quite obvious that the level of threat applied in Illy so far is extremly low, that is why you try to drive your points home with big extrapolations and not the actual reality here so far, while only latter would be a forceful basis for arguments...

" You claim that I'm "alone" and that therefore I should refrain from any further discussion of the matter as, being alone, should be sufficient evidence that I'm wrong to get me to stop."

I did this because of two reasons:

A) Rightness and wrongness in a debate and argument are never ever decided by the main acteurs in it while still disagreeing. On the small scale it is decided by the onlookers, and in the long run  by the history of effect. Aristotle wasn´t a good philosopher because he thought so about himself, but because other thought so and had recourse to his arguments and methods. Obviously we can´t wait 1-2 generations to see wich side works out better and has more effect, bystanders are also a shaky thing here, so I think the ones joining the debate without directly being targeted (like peaceful Angrim, trainingalliance Joda and small harmless newby me) are a reasonable indicator of how well you are doing. If people that are close to what you wish everyone to do (refraining from lan dclaims and threats) don´t agree with your argumentation, a big suprise and a re-evaluation of your assumptions should be a way more effective way to reach your goals than to declare them irrational... Right now it is like someone calling for worldpeace in such a bad way that even amnesty international, doctors against the proliferation of atom bombs and journalists without boundaries are against him instead of just the dictators and the weapons lobby... 

B) Even if you are right, your performance can still hurt your case, so that a certain ammount of decorum is better for your cause than an ongoing struggle that annoys more and more people. So it was more a stop-doing-it-because-you-are-right. And as I said, I appreciate peacefulness, I am just afraid your performance hurts the case for an as peaceful game as possible...

" In addition you claim that I do not understand my opponents.    Au contraire mon ami,"

Well, if you understand someone is in the end decided by him/her and not you. Directly and indirectly it was stated above by others and now directly by me: I don´t think that you totally get my points, and usually you skip the ones I deem quite strong...

" You seem to want to make the discussion about a claim you think I'm making that my moral starting points are universal.    But I don't claim that at all.    I would be, in good Socratic imitation, satisfied if you and my opponents in this debate were to ascribe to my major and minor premises. I began with these premises because I did, and do in fact, believe you and my opponents do ascribe to them."

See above, but just to declare it again, I don´t ascribe to your premise, because I think it is wrong, not from the intent (wrong intent is quite rarely a problem in my experience, and I have studied in the humanities, so I had to deal with a lot of debates and opinions by historical acteurs and modern scholars) but from the extent you want to give it. 

" They don't believe in a real debate"

Well, I certainly do, but obviously not in a way you do, as you are making it into a game that is about winning instead of actually engaging the minds of other persons. And with that you can consider me out of this debate, I don´t need to win, you don´t need to beat me as I already play peacefully. I think I have learned here what I could and offered my points as good as I could, for whatever that may ammount...
Back to Top
ajqtrz View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 24 May 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 500 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ajqtrz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2016 at 23:53

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

Originally posted by Sargon Sargon wrote:

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

"While in almost all of your reply you do not address the logic of what I'm saying and thus, do not answer my challenge. "

Oher players an I myself  did so repeatedly, and it is getting extremly annoying to hear your haughty rumblings about others not doing so, obviously your conviction to do the right thing is impairing your abilities to actually engage and understand other human beings in a non-authoritarian way. 

One last time the short version for you:

A) Even you yourself acceded to the fact that not all threats are bad and wrong, therefore your premise is reduced to "some instances of threats are bad", so your conclusion that landclaiming by threats is bad isn´t forcing and necessary anymore.

The word "unnecessary" is in the statement.  All UNNECESSARY threats are harmful.  By leaving out the qualifier you change the premise and thus your conclusion cannot be drawn from what I've said.  My point about not all threats are bad is that there are "necessary" threats and thus, "not all threats are bad,"  but all unnecessary ones are.

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

Originally posted by Sargon Sargon wrote:

B) Even if we would agree that generally threats are bad, almost everyone here disagreed to its (full) application in games, especially ones with war implemented in them anyways. Your only argument for that is a study showing some sort of bad influence while ignoring the studies showing that on a socienal level there is no percievable negative effect of gaming so far. So you are jumping again from a 'some' to a general statement, again highly doubtful performance on your side.

Again you appeal to popular sentiment as if it could replace logic.  As for the studies I'm pretty sure I've covered them fairly.  I've noted that there are some that do not show significant problems, but the two or three meta-studies I've read report that over all most studies do show there is some effect.  The duration, direction and intensity of the effects is still being studied, but that there is an effect is not debated by any competent cyberpsychologist of whom I'm aware.

Your focus on the societal level assumes that for there to be an effect it has to result in a crime being committed and reported.  That is simply a false standard.

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

Originally posted by Sargon Sargon wrote:

C) Even if it would be applyable in games in general (what more or less everyone denied), it is quite obvious that the level of threat applied in Illy so far is extremly low, that is why you try to drive your points home with big extrapolations and not the actual reality here so far, while only latter would be a forceful basis for arguments...

It may be low or high but that's not the point.  It's not NECESSARY.  And if you harm unnecessarily you harm.  More to the point in some ways, every person playing any game expects there to be some downside because that is the nature of competition, but no one should expect unnecessary harm from the game.  In fact a good deal of rules in sports are there to reduce the level of harm done.  The point of games for everybody to have the most fun that can be hand without unnecessary harm. 

And you are right in that I do extrapolate.  However, if you read the latest land claim you will find an expanded list of things players can't do in the claimed area.  In other words it only natural to suspect that absolute power over an area leads to absolute control of everything in that area including the players NOT in your alliance.    It only takes two points and a direction to figure out where things are going.  The first claims by "nice guys" restricted settlement only.  This one includes harvesting. That is an expansion of the control claimed.  Sovereignty is absolute control and granting it to anyone but the players as a whole is not necessary or good for the game.

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

Originally posted by Sargon Sargon wrote:

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

"You claim that I'm "alone" and that therefore I should refrain from any further discussion of the matter as, being alone, should be sufficient evidence that I'm wrong to get me to stop."

I did this because of two reasons:

A) Rightness and wrongness in a debate and argument are never ever decided by the main acteurs in it while still disagreeing. On the small scale it is decided by the onlookers, and in the long run  by the history of effect. Aristotle wasn´t a good philosopher because he thought so about himself, but because other thought so and had recourse to his arguments and methods. Obviously we can´t wait 1-2 generations to see wich side works out better and has more effect, bystanders are also a shaky thing here, so I think the ones joining the debate without directly being targeted (like peaceful Angrim, trainingalliance Joda and small harmless newby me) are a reasonable indicator of how well you are doing. If people that are close to what you wish everyone to do (refraining from lan dclaims and threats) don´t agree with your argumentation, a big suprise and a re-evaluation of your assumptions should be a way more effective way to reach your goals than to declare them irrational... Right now it is like someone calling for worldpeace in such a bad way that even amnesty international, doctors against the proliferation of atom bombs and journalists without boundaries are against him instead of just the dictators and the weapons lobby... 

In a formal debate you can claim to have won the point.  And if you have, and the judge considers the evidence so overwhelming that you have won then there is nothing wrong with declaring it so.  And if the point you have just declared to be settled is settled you build upon that base. 

Of course it is not really decided by anyone in an informal debate because there is no mechanism by which to decide.  But it is decided by each individual in the audience, including yourself, your opponent, and the rest of the participants, speakers or not.  If the evidence on one side is pretty clearly good and solid and the other side does not put forth a coherent and consistent counter-claim, it is perfectly acceptable to note that your opponents are no longer arguing the point...as I've done with a number of points in the current debate. 

Actually there are many studies that show those who think they are good at something become better at it.  Aristotle may have thought he was good at it before he became good at it.  My personal experience is that people generally go in the direction of which they think you have natural talent...and thus that they are going to be good at or are already good at to some degree. 

As for those who refrain from land claims but don't agree with me, I'm glad they refrain.  However, what I think you are really saying is that their motives determine their stance.  That they don't have the motives for putting forth a land claim and cannot see the harm does not mean that therefore land claims are not a problem.   Again it matters not what motivates a person in their argument but what moves the argument logically. 

I love the analogy.  But of course just because Doctors Without Borders argues against someone calling for world peace it doesn't mean they suddenly want WWIII.  You can still hold a conclusion and disagree with the argument another puts forth to reach that conclusion.  And you can still hold the opposite conclusion and disagree with the person putting forth that conclusion, and be wrong.  It's not the stance of my friends or opponents which influences me or should influence me, it's the logic.  My friends should only influence me to look more carefully than I do and only that because I assume then they are not trying to "defeat" me for the sake of defeating me.  But respect simply says, "I am listening" not "I agree."  It would be quite dis-respectful to claim to believe something you do not agree with for the sake of honoring friendship.  Friends don't require full agreement from friends.  At least that's been my experience.

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

Originally posted by Sargon Sargon wrote:


B) Even if you are right, your performance can still hurt your case, so that a certain ammount of decorum is better for your cause than an ongoing struggle that annoys more and more people. So it was more a stop-doing-it-because-you-are-right. And as I said, I appreciate peacefulness, I am just afraid your performance hurts the case for an as peaceful game as possible...

You'd be surprised at the number of times I've received thanks for my standing here making this case.  Almost nobody who reads the forums responds and many who don't actually agree with me.  But of course we can't very well take a survey, can we?  (Even if we could it would be skewed by whichever side was motivated to "vote")

Actually I've found that most people haven't really kept up with my "performance."  Most people are too easily swayed by the perceptions of those who disagree with me and the sometimes nasty things they say about me and my performance in GC and other places.  In other words, it's not surprising that people perceive my performance as lacking since there are some people out there who, having been hurt by my holding their feet to the fire, want to blame my style for their hot feet.  I expect that out of many people because it generally takes a long time and effort to get people to change their mind and in the mean time the discomfort they feel is blamed upon the messenger rather than what the message says about them.

It's not that my performance has not been without mistakes.  I've responded at times somewhat forcefully, I've occasionally overstated things, and even, a few time, had to admit I was wrong about something.  But overall I do believe my responses have been more measured and civil than most of my opponents.  I've generally held to a higher standard because I do, in fact, wish this to be a civil debate and not a shouting match, and many of my opponents do, in fact, act civilly.  But sadly, not all.  Of course those who have suffered defeat wish to find fault, but that too, is natural.  I'm not proud of everything I've said or how I've said it, but I'm not ashamed in the least over my performance.  My only request is that you read my responses and see for yourself if they have not often held back where they could have attacked, addressed the subject at hand for the most part rather than the character of my opponent, and so on.    And if you find any fault do let me know.  I've apologized before and have no problem doing so in the future.

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

Originally posted by Sargon Sargon wrote:

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

 "In addition you claim that I do not understand my opponents.  Au contraire mon ami,"

Well, if you understand someone is in the end decided by him/her and not you. Directly and indirectly it was stated above by others and now directly by me: I don´t think that you totally get my points, and usually you skip the ones I deem quite strong...

Actually communication is not exclusively source driven.  Wimsatt and Beardsley spoke of the intentional fallacy as well as the affective fallacy in the interpretation of meaning.  A communication act may have a single meaning but it may also have various meanings and that one person thinks it means one thing and another something else is not surprising.  However it may be the meaning is somewhat negotiated by the responses to the speaker by the receiver and the receiver to the speaker so that, in the end, some level of understanding does occur.  That's human communication and it sucks at being precise outside the logic and mathematical areas where symbols are strictly defined by other symbols.  So what are the major points I've missed addressing?  I'll do my best to address them if I haven't in the past.

In addition, I game opportunity for my opponents to correct any miss-understandings I had of their points.   Since, for the most part, they did not, they gave tacit agreement that I at least understood those points at that time.  I might add that most of those points are no longer being discussed as the ground upon which they stand is no longer a tenable position for my opponents.

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

Originally posted by Sargon Sargon wrote:

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

"You seem to want to make the discussion about a claim you think I'm making that my moral starting points are universal.  But I don't claim that at all.  I would be, in good Socratic imitation, satisfied if you and my opponents in this debate were to ascribe to my major and minor premises.I began with these premises because I did, and do in fact, believe you and my opponents do ascribe to them."


See above, but just to declare it again, I don´t ascribe to your premise, because I think it is wrong, not from the intent (wrong intent is quite rarely a problem in my experience, and I have studied in the humanities, so I had to deal with a lot of debates and opinions by historical acteurs and modern scholars) but from the extent you want to give it. 

Well then, to which of the premises are you referring when you say you "don't ascribe to your premise?"  You seem to be saying that you don't agree that something I said will or does extend as much in the direction I claim it extends.   I hope I've got it right because if so now all I need is a more specific statement of what I "extended" that should not have been so far "extended."

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

Originally posted by Sargon Sargon wrote:

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

"They don't believe in a real debate"


Well, I certainly do, but obviously not in a way you do, as you are making it into a game that is about winning instead of actually engaging the minds of other persons. And with that you can consider me out of this debate, I don´t need to win, you don´t need to beat me as I already play peacefully. I think I have learned here what I could and offered my points as good as I could, for whatever that may ammount...

Since you believe in debate and I believe in debate one has to wonder of what we are arguing.  Perhaps you could describe the form of debate you envision so that I can figure out how I've missed the boat, so to speak.  I've dealt with your points, point by point, which is, I think, part of what debating is about.  I've offered evidence and reasoning, and I've pretty much kept it civil.  That I haven't agreed with you may give evidence that I'm motivated to win, but it also may be that I just find your arguments unclear, illogical, confused or some other thing which blocks me from seeing them clearly.  That I find them that way may or may not reflect your presentation of them, but that's one of the reasons we debate...to clarify and organize things so that we can see both sides.

Anyway, if you look closely at your points most of them revolve not around if intimidation by threats of coercion are good for the game, but mostly around why I should shut up and listen to my peers regarding the matter.  You see, you haven't really debated the question exclusively and often gotten side-tracked by the issue of my character or performance.  I hate to say this but truth isn't decided by a popularity contest.  Truth stand as truth even if nobody knows it.

So do try to understand that if we are trying to debate two things at one time things might get a bit confusing.  And when that happens debate is difficult.  Maybe you can return and, as you did in the opening of your latest post, the one to which I am point by point responding, we can make some progress toward a resolution of the question: "is unnecessary intimidation by threats of coercion good for the game?"  Or maybe you have a better statement of what you think is being debated.

Back to Top
kodabear View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Astronomer

Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Location: Lucerna
Status: Offline
Points: 1237 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote kodabear Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2016 at 00:05
Ajq Please stop putting every little thing in quote It make it hard to read

Back to Top
Sargon View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 32 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Sargon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2016 at 09:33
Dear AJ

Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:

Perhaps you could describe the form of debate you envision

Well, I am certainly a child of continental philosophy/history of thought and postmodernism. I have seen enough historical and recent debates and read enough of (postmodern) philosophy to be convinced that I am neighter totally right, nor that there is a chance of convincing a good deal of persons just by 'rational' debate of my positions. So when I do debate, I do it as a hermeneutic endeavour that aims at understanding (myself and the other) or at perserving a in my view healthy plurality of opinions (in my debate with you both were the case). 

I mean, for example no one would take me serious if I would write an article about wether Justin Martyr or Tryphon were right in their discussion about emerging Christianity, but it would be a decent work of science if I tried to outline why they believed/said what they said in the way they said it, what their influences were etc. Trying to decide who is right and wrong rarely is a fruitful endeavour, for yourself and the world, trying to learn something from/about your opponent more often than not is, and in that way you might actually find ways to at least partially influence them. 

Harping on about principles usually does just justice to the abstarct necessities of rational debate and not to the actual, pragmatic level we are all living in, though in different ways. Going into a debate with the conviction to be able to declare someone right and rational and the rest to be in the wrong and having irrational views is a highly simplified view on the messiness of the human condition and thus does injustice to the world, intellectually and morally in my view/experience. Or put somewhat easier, the structures of rational debate are not the structures of the world we are living in, and surly that is not the 'fault' of the people living there. 

And that is why I am not trying to show that your view is wrong, because neither do I think it is, nor do I think it can or should be done... You are just mistaken if you think you can force it on others and especially so if you blame them for not coming to your conclusions and making that into another indication of your rightness...

I am afraid this won´t help, as probably we both are having a quite different understanding of the text, but think yourself as Antigone and me as Ismene in the euripidian sense...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1112131415>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.