Why Preach?

Princess Botchface wrote: 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.

First, I'm truely you have a "crappy pointless life."  I don't wish that on anybody.  Still, maybe some of that "crappiness" comes from people not caring about you?   So, since people are present in Illyriad, why not try to help us make it more friendly?

You are, I think, right to say it's not your job to make the game fun for anyone, but then again, is it your job to needlessly make it an unhappy place?  If not then maybe it's your job to keep it as open as it can be so that others have a chance to make it a happy place for them.  Intimidation by threats of coercion, last time I checked, is not a happy thing to experience.  So maybe, to get us back to just neutral where everybody can "get happy" their own way as much as possible, we should remove the hindrances?

Just a thought.

AJ

ajqtrz wrote: But the argument we have here is if the land claimers have the right to take any area of the map from the rest of us for their exclusive use by other methods than the currently accepted settlement rules.  I argue that they do not, and you, apparently, that they do.  That is a point of contention. Brandmeister wrote: Accepted by whom? The developers created the rules of the sandbox. Those players have taken action within the scope of the game rules. The imposition of additional conventions has been projected by the community. That is by definition the metagame, and it is a messy process. Nowhere have you provided that there is a moral, ethical, or logical basis for the "community" (as you egregiously misuse the term) to inflict its rules upon everyone in the game. There is also no precedent that an aggrieved minority must accept terms dictated by people on the forums, in GC, or anywhere else, when they have full recourse to other methods within the scope of the game. I missed this point in your last post.  You argue that "those players have taken action within the scope of the game rules," a point with which I disagree.  To be in the scope of the rules the rules must say that you can grab sovereignty of an area.  ....well, how about that...they say exactly that...then they spell out how to do that...let's see....hmm......put an army on the square.....claim sovereignty.....done. Now I'm looking for the: "claim a wide area without cities by using intimidation by threats of coercion......." still looking.....can you give me the page number because IT ISN'T HERE! But of course, you aren't arguing it's in the rules (even though you imply it's in the "scope of the game rules."  It's in the "scope of the meta-game rules" but that is of what we are arguing...if it should be or not. Now how do we decide that?  I'm for looking to the health of the game.  Does the use of intimidation by threats of coercion improve the health of any society, online or not?  Does it make it more fun? Does it not lead to less freedom?  You seem to forget that I"m not trying to force anybody to do anything.  I'm trying to persuade them.  Persuasion is about getting them to make the rational choice and that means laying out the rational for each side and finding where it takes you.  Most player, myself included, make intuitive choices and then go out and find the rational for their choice.  Thus, in a debate like this it takes a long, long time to move anybody exactly because most people, once they've made a commitment to a side, are reluctant and somewhat embarrassed to admit they didn't think it through before they made the commitment.  But if you keep examining any complex question like the one before us, you eventually either become more committed as the argument on your side becomes stronger, or, if you are an honest person, you come to the conclusion that your original commitment was an error, and switch sides.  I'm thinking that if we continue, eventually one of us will switch sides.  As it stands now, from my perspective, the use of intimidation by threats of coercion is not a rational choice, or, to make it more accurate, it is not a rational choice if your goal is to make the game more fun for everybody.  It may be a rational choice if your goal is to make the game more fun for the few who would use this tactic.  That the opposition has clearly shown to be highly likely.  Thus, it boils down to the whole or the part.  Which do you wish to improve?  If you hold a "win at all costs" and "winning means being dominate" philosophy  (what might be called "aggressive game play") you will not see the need to concern yourself with the health of the overall game.  If you are less than gung-ho over that philosophy, (which means you recognize the need for moderation) and you are even a bit concerned with the overall social health of the game, you will ask yourself if the move to using intimidation by threats of coercion as a tactic will hurt or help the game.  My bet is that since I've shown that: 1) the tactic is personal...meaning real people are discouraged from doing things in the game which they would otherwise do and thus suffer (however minor or major that suffering might be); 2) I've shown that when people are discouraged they are less likely to continue playing (I actually don't do much with this as it's so obvious that I thought it needed little attention, but of course I can produce a lot of evidence if needed); 3) I've shown that the tactic, strictly speaking, is not needed; and, 4) I've shown an alternative route (Declarations of Homeland) to get the same results.  Thus, I've proved the unhealthy nature of intimidation by threats of coercion from moral principals and from pragmatic considerations (utilitarian philosophy is that you don't use what is not needed to be used when you can accomplish the same thing with less expenditure of energy). I've done my part.  And I've challenged over and over my opposition to explain themselves.  A few have laid out a few things, but each of them has proven to fall short of the complete argument I've presented.  The best ideas of the opposition is that it's an evolution in the game and that it is needed by the land claimers.  I've shown it's not needed.  Yet, to give my opposition credit, it may be an evolution of the game.  But most scientist will tell you that evolutionary change usually ends up in extinction far more than survival.  I want Illyriad to survive and thrive.  AJ

Edited by ajqtrz - 09 Feb 2016 at 16:32