Of fair play and respect

[jerdge]

OK now, so CN is a [color=blue][b]simulation[/b][/color] [color=green][b]game[/b][/color]. Words are important, and in this case [i]both[/i] words are [i]very[/i] important.

When I talk of a simulation I don't necessarily mean Role Playing. CN being a simulation means that we retain the ability to distinguish ourselves and the game: we are free to be as saint/evil we like to be, whithin the confines of the game, but we also respect the other players as the RL human beings they are. (I am here going with an axiom I won't attempt to prove: that RL human beings [i]must[/i] be respected, Kant and all that jazz.)

One problem we have is the influence a group of players - which to be clear I don't think can be exactly overlapped with any alliance or group of alliances: this isn't Alliance Announcements - which isn't really playing this game as a simulation, but just as an extension of their virtual/Internet bad habits, which in turn unfortunately exclude respecting people they don't like.
The Internet allows one to be mean and offensive with little fear of actual physical/legal repercussions - very cowardly, isn't it? - at least as long as the offences don't become really major and worth some RL authority's time. CN is a little bit too often used as a vehicle for that crap, IMHO, which also shows a blatant disrespect for the game itself (and for the game staff), and for the community; it's in fact no surprise at all that a lot of "those" people openly say that "CN is a !@#$ game"; they really think that and they don't care for the (hard or soft) gaming side at all: they just feel good when they can be mean with other players.

One of the (on the other hand, interesting) mechanisms - but there are many - is the intentional blurring or "in-game moralism" with RL civility and gaming fair play. Players that defend the game from that highly disrespectful crap are often labeled as "moralists", and accused of trying to impose their "moralistic" game play over everyone else. Asking for the game to remain a game has actually nothing to do with morals: it's about fair play, i.e. it's the IC/OOC line (please see [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=108959&view=findpost&p=2925078"]this post[/url]). Asking for RL respect isn't in any way infringing over any player's gaming freedom either, as no consistent positive notion of freedom admits abusive behaviour among peers.

Another (interesting) mechanism is the downplaying of offences. Just because it's the Internet we should believe that it's not really that important if people get trampled on - or if there's anyway an attempt to do so; we should believe that it's not "really bad" when (semi-)organized groups are willingly mean against other players. The cries are "it's the Internet, baby!" and "get a thicker skin".
Leaving aside for a moment the huge hypocrisy of then being utterly offended when critics show up - wasn't it "the Internet, baby", now? - being virtually immune of physical/legal consequences doesn't in any way, shape or form mean that there are no consequences at all. If one is acting like a mean idiot, they shouldn't then complain when they're called out as the mean idiots they were: it's just "consequences".
When people contest an abusive behaviour they aren't showing that they lost touch with reality, they [i]are[/i] reality. There's no "how things should be because this is the Internet suck it and shut up", the reactions are "how things [i]are[/i]".
It's people that can't cope with how things [i]are[/i] - with the reactions they triggered - that should stop raving about their silly idea of how things "should be": there's no rule/right about bad, mean and abusive players being immune to criticism for their behaviour. Suck it and shut up!

As a side note, people should also think a bit ahead for their own good. Just like you can't go insult and harass people in the street without finding yourself in physical/legal trouble - which are the consequences RL individuals/society enact to protect RL people's dignity and rights - you can't go insult and harass people in CN without finding yourself in CN trouble, sooner or later. This community has an overseeing staff and a lot of players that don't like people that try to break their game. Thanks mainly to an almost infinite amount of patience on part of the former, and thanks mainly to a lot of inertia on part of the latter, mean and offensive players didn't all get thrown out already.
I wouldn't count on it to last forever, though. You can spread venom only so much before it's time to put you down: RL consequences for RL offences, if that makes sense.

[size=5][color=red][b]tl;dr:[/b][/color][/size]
[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1329885462' post='2925411']I think what the OP is saying is even if you hate someone IC and want to destroy them, you shouldn't try to harass them OOC as well, which I agree with him on 100%.[/quote]

[hr]
[color=blue][b]FAQs![/b][/color]

[b]On basic concepts (or "what are talking of?")[/b]
[spoiler][list][*][color=blue][b]Q. What line(s) are we talking of?[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] It's "The Game"/Real Life line. "The Game" is the game at large: "hard" in-game features and "soft" game-based political/social interaction, metagaming, alliances (as social bodies), their IRC chans and forums etc.
I ask for IC (the characters) and OOC (us as players of the game, or metagaming) to both be kept separated from RL (everything else). It's bad if people bring RL issues into "The Game" or if they use "The Game" to harass others from a RL angle. (More on this subject: [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109250&view=findpost&p=2926580"]clicky[/url].)

[*][color=blue][b]Q. There are many types of respect, which one are you talking of?[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] The respect I am talking of is what is needed to try coexist peacefully (as players) and to not go look for trouble or for quarreling. I am not asking for everyone to love everyone else, but just for people to realize that we're just playing a game, we don't really know each other and there is no reason at all to try harm the other players. (More on this subject: [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109250&view=findpost&p=2926580"]clicky[/url].)

[*][color=blue][b]Q. Respect is not and/or should not be a given.[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] I think that we can easily coexist in peace, as long as no one claims that [i]disrespect[/i] is a given (More on this subject: [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109250&view=findpost&p=2926580"]clicky[/url].)

[*][color=blue][b]Q. Enforcing respect of others (beyond the rules) goes against the freedom of choosing how one relates to others.[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] Relating with others to trample on their rights is not a right, it's an abuse of one's freedom (calling something "freedom" doesn't make it good). Exercising one's freedom doesn't come without consequences, anyway.
That idea of "right"/freedom to disrespect is also inherently contradictory: someone embracing it could have his "freedom" restricted by a second party that "freely choose to relate" with the first one by preventing him to freely choose how to relate with others. Any complaint would be moot because the second party would be exercising the same freedom the first was advocating for himself. (More on this subject: [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109250&view=findpost&p=2926580"]clicky[/url].)

[*][color=blue][b]Q. You didn't demonstrate "concept X" / anything in your theory.[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] I actually tried to support my claims with some thought. I am not a philosopher, though. Despite what many have said in their comments, this thread is about [i]doing[/i] more than anything else, thus I am not going to argue to death why people should respect each other, but just to try convince people that believe that to stand up against disrespect. (More on this subject: [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109250&view=findpost&p=2926580"]clicky[/url].)


[/list][/spoiler]


[b]On purpose and strategy[/b]
[spoiler][list][*][color=blue][b]Q. What's the purpose of the OP?[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] I wrote the OP to express my point of view over CN being used as a vehicle for disrespecting other players. My specific focus is on terminology and the base concepts of the issue: there's a lot of confusion about both, and that confusion damages the ability of players to react and to work together to defend the quality of this playground.
You can also read the OP as a sort of "appeal" to players, to invite them to behave respectfully and also to suggest that not only they should, but they [i]can[/i] ask that to their fellow players.
There's also an attempt to deconstruct a couple of propaganda lines that are very often used to dismiss the problem.
[spoiler][quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1330005195' post='2926580'][b]I challenge disrespect, I don't want it to be the default behaviour, I ask for respect for me and for the other players, I advocate for disrespectful behaviours to become [i]socially unacceptable[/i] in CN. I want to have the attacks on RL people stop - NOW - I want the people that insist in perpetrating them be [i]heavily[/i] and [i]widely[/i] criticized by their peers, I want the pressure against such behaviours become [i]overwhelming[/i] to the point that people that engage in that are practically forced to either stop or [i]leave CN for good[/i].[/b]
I don't think that IC means are a good way to obtain that - in fact they can't by design! We need that people that care stand up for their game from a RL angle, that they refuse to take part in RL attacks and that they make their voice heard against them.[/quote][/spoiler]

[*][color=blue][b]Q. This discussion about leaving off-game stuff out is off-game itself: it shouldn't try affect the game.[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] It's the other way round: this is a discussion on off-game issues that shouldn't affect it, while they do it. Is it possible to talk of fair play at all?

[*][color=blue][b]Q. Nothing will change / There will always be some abuse / This won't persuade anyone[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] Things continue to change, there's no reason to think that they suddenly stopped right now. People also change over time, often for good: why should I give up hope? Some people may improve their behaviour because we have a civil and constructive discussion about things. At any rate I prefer to keep trying.

[*][color=blue][b]Q. Why do you think we should suddenly listen to you and change?[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] Most of the ideas anyone ever had were learned from someone else, whatever is in the OP included. This means that I am just passing stuff along, and also that some ideas that I or the following posters throw into the discussion may take roots and bring some good fruit. Nobody is certainly going to learn anything if we all shut up because it's "condescending" to have opinions.

[*][color=blue][b]Q. You could help/participate and you just post some essay every now and then instead.[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] I do what I can, I am not paid to do this full time.

[*][color=blue][b]Q. I meant: You could help/participate [i]in game[/i].[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] I don't want things to change in the game, as it's not the game I am even talking of. The limited time I am willing to spend for in-game features is already taken by my little in-game projects, and if I wanted to expand it I'd go look for a better cause than introducing RL motives in IC activities.

[*][color=blue][b]Q. Why do you say that IC can't work?[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] IC means can't work by design. This issue is RL-based, and even completely destroying the "offenders" in the game wouldn't remove their ability to do harm in RL. As most don't really care about the game at all, many would actually barely notice any difference. (More on this subject: [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109250&view=findpost&p=2926580"]clicky[/url].)

[*][color=blue][b]Q. Why do you say that "words can do it"?.[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] Social norms can change, and this thread is aimed at helping them change. If the "offenders" are a small minority it will work, and I am going by the assumption that "sociopaths" are a small minority. (More on this subject: [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109250&view=findpost&p=2926580"]clicky[/url].)

[/list][/spoiler]


[b]On doing it in game / IC / OOC[/b]
[spoiler][list][*][color=blue][b]Q. Why don't you just name / fight the alliances you're accusing of this?[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] I don't intend to accuse any alliance as I firmly believe that no alliance (or group of) can be clearly/precisely associated with the problem. Mixing in-game entities with an issue that has all to do with just the players wouldn't IMHO be conductive to improve the situation.
[spoiler][quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1329896174' post='2925483']<SNIP> It's not about alliances vs. alliances. It's about real people from all the alliances and the general level of conduct that makes the game fun and enjoyable.

A good dose of respect for other people as human beings outside of the realm of this simulator makes for a good community and prosperous atmosphere.

Also, [don't] underestimate the power of social conformity in regulating norms and mores. The possibility of condemnation of actions by your peers shapes how you interact and conduct yourself with others. It causes people to pick the words they use when posting, how they use them, the usage of lingo, RL actions and so on. That means, imo, no matter how rude, obnoxious, aggressive, ruthless, people might play in-game, there should be strong voices in every alliance to remind players to have respect for people outside of the game.[/quote][/spoiler]

[*][color=blue][b]Q. HA! You're talking of Alliance X / "we both know who"![/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] That's not the case: it's about [i]players[/i]. There are respectful players in every alliance: involving any specific alliance would defeat the very purpose of my posting.

[*][color=blue][b]Q. Talk is cheap, do something about it.[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] This [i]is[/i] doing something about it. How else do you think I could invite the community of players to discuss this issue? Are you going to invite me at your home for a cup of coffee? What's your budget for my flight?

[*][color=blue][b]Q. I meant: talk is cheap, do something about it [i]in game[/i].[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] I don't want things to change in the game, as it's not the game I am even talking of. The limited time I am willing to spend for in-game features is already taken by my little in-game projects, and if I wanted to expand it I'd go look for a better cause than introducing RL motives in IC activities.

[/list][/spoiler]


[b]On jerdge[/b]
[spoiler][list][*][color=blue][b]Q. This is like the N[sup]th[/sup] "can't we all just get along" post by jerdge.[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] Since there are that many I am sure you can link at least a few recent [i]threads[/i] that I started or that just are centered on this matter.

[*][color=blue][b]Q. Stop accusing people / being condescending[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] I don't intend to pass judgment on people, but just on behaviours.

[*][color=blue][b]Q. I mean that you're [i]really[/i] condescending, you moron.[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] I know, I just can't help it. Bear with me, I also have qualities!

[/list][/spoiler]


[b]Miscellaneous[/b]
[spoiler][list][*][color=blue][b]Q. Any mocking/derailing/other content-less post ("you're an attention whore" [i]BAAAAAWING[/i] included).[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b]

[*][color=blue][b]Q. Players on the receiving end of OOC attacks shouldn't have shared their RL to begin with.[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] Not sharing personal information is indeed wise, but this isn't about what to do to avoid being harassed IRL, nor about who is responsible for that, but about the community tolerating or not RL harassment and other threats to the players, the game and fair play, and why.
Players on the receiving end of RL harassment haven't always been giving away their information, by the way: some have been stalked.

[*][color=blue][b]Q. AH! I can actually be mean IRL too and get away with it.[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] [i]WOOOOOOSHHHHHH!!!![/i]

[/list][/spoiler]

Edited February 29, 2012 by jerdge

[Voytek]

sweet post i rate it 8/10 i'm sure it'll get you places

[Stonewall Jaxon]

Thank you for this, jerdge; I only hope it does not fall on deaf ears. There should never be any confusion over where the RL and IC line is, and those who cross it do so knowingly and should expect consequence if discovered.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Stonewall Jaxon

[Monster]

I dunno man. I'm just lucky I haven't been doing anything that bad.

[Canik]

I think this particular moralist ideal is pretty agreeable. A lot of us don't like 'moralist' for their stances on tech raiding & war.. among other delusions of what is 'honorable'.. like, I've had to convince someone it was okay to use spies (in-game) for example. Unfortunately, even if this idea is more popular than those, there will always be some level of harassment and OOC/IC blurring. Angst kids.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1329827698' post='2925079']
As a side note, people should also think a bit ahead for their own good. Just like you can't go insult and harass people in the street without finding yourself in physical/legal trouble - which are the consequences RL individuals/society enact to protect RL people's dignity and rights - you can't go insult and harass people in CN without finding yourself in CN trouble, sooner or later. This community has an overseeing staff and a lot of players that don't like people that try to break their game. Thanks mainly to an almost infinite amount of patience on part of the former, and thanks mainly to a lot of inertia on part of the latter, mean and offensive players didn't all get thrown out already.
I wouldn't count on it to last forever, though. You can spread venom only so much before it's time to put you down: RL consequences for RL offences, if that makes sense.
[/quote]
TBH, I've been convinced for about a year now that MK and friends are doing it on purpose.

[quote name='Canik' timestamp='1329830711' post='2925094']
I think this particular moralist ideal is pretty agreeable. A lot of us don't like 'moralist' for their stances on tech raiding & war.. among other delusions of what is 'honorable'.. like, I've had to convince someone it was okay to use spies (in-game) for example. Unfortunately, even if this idea is more popular than those, there will always be some level of harassment and OOC/IC blurring. Angst kids.
[/quote]
The "moralism" thing you describe is really just a well-executed straw-man. Most of the "moralists," myself included, really don't buy into ridiculous things like "all war is bad!" or "all reps are bad!" or "tech raiding is bad!". Most of us just adopt a strict, universal code of ethics, that we apply equally to ourselves as we do to others. Many of these codes vary wildly, the only thing in common is that they are strictly and universally applied. Being a moralist just means you don't whine when people do to you the same crap you do to others. People who whine about "moralism" after attaching made-up attributes to the concept, are the sorts of people jerdge talks about in his post: People who want to live in a consequence-free (but only for themselves) world.

Edited February 21, 2012 by HeroofTime55

[pezstar]

I can agree with the sentiment here, and I have always held Jerdge in high respect, however I have issues with a government member of what is the largest alliance in the game, passing judgment on others, when neither he, nor his alliance, are willing to do anything about it other than issue a lecture clearly pointed in one direction. If you want things to change, you have to actively work toward that goal. Giving a speech from within your "neutral" ivory tower is kind of BS, frankly.

[Altheus]

Good post and also Canik's point. Outside of the context of the game there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with tech raiding, war, spying etc, but because everything unagreeable (both IC and OOC) gets lumped into the unhelpful category of "moralist", in both a delibrately negative manner and also with no distinction between IC and OOC, it's very easy for overt OOC aggression to be overlooked.
And this game suffers far too much from it, or more importantly some players suffer far too much from it. Although I do think it's a problem the internet "community" has as a whole.

[deth2munkies]

This is like the 15th "can't we all just get along" post by jerdge. I respect you, and it's well written as always, but do you honestly think that people who disagree with you will be persuaded by it?

I think the OOC stuff has gotten worse than ever, especially with all this RoK !@#$%^&*, and it really needs to stop. These dumbasses are chasing off some of the few people who still find this thing fun, and that's just bad for everyone involved.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1329832848' post='2925098']
I can agree with the sentiment here, and I have always held Jerdge in high respect, however I have issues with a government member of what is the largest alliance in the game, passing judgment on others, when neither he, nor his alliance, are willing to do anything about it other than issue a lecture clearly pointed in one direction. If you want things to change, you have to actively work toward that goal. Giving a speech from within your "neutral" ivory tower is kind of BS, frankly.
[/quote]
It's more of a paper tower TBH. I won't fault GPA for continuing to follow the direction they laid out for themselves, although you do have a case when you speak of jerdge individually. That said, I don't know if anyone has any idea what going on inside his head: Maybe he's worked to get into government precisely because he does desire to work towards those goals.

You know, there are ways to make a difference besides just throwing yourself headfirst into a brick wall. This is analogous to all the cries that people have made since the days of the old hegemony, for people to just magically rise up and zerg rush "The Man" or whatever. These people who criticize anyone and everyone who instead chooses to associate themselves with the power structure, totally oblivious to the fact that probably a good number of those they criticize are trying to make a difference from the inside, using their own influence to gently tug the offending groups in a more proper direction. Or maybe I'm delusional and this is just how I rationalize PF being so deeply connected to DH/PB.

[Charles Stuart]

Talk is cheap, either you make a stand via your actions or you can commentate from the sidelines. Your choice.

[jerdge]

[quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1329832848' post='2925098']I can agree with the sentiment here, and I have always held Jerdge in high respect, however I have issues with a government member of what is the largest alliance in the game, passing judgment on others, when neither he, nor his alliance, are willing to do anything about it other than issue a lecture clearly pointed in one direction. If you want things to change, you have to actively work toward that goal. Giving a speech from within your "neutral" ivory tower is kind of BS, frankly.[/quote]
I think there was some misunderstanding here, pezstar.

I wrote the OP to express my point of view over CN being used as a vehicle for disrespecting other players. My specific focus is on terminology and the base concepts of the issue: there's a lot of confusion about both, and that confusion damages the ability of players to react and to work together to defend the quality of this playground.
You can also read the OP as a sort of "appeal" to players, to invite them to behave respectfully and also to suggest that not only they should, but they [i]can[/i] ask that to their fellow players.
There's also an attempt to deconstruct a couple of propaganda lines that are very often used to dismiss the problem.
Basically, it's a struggle to clear what it is we're actually talking of.

I don't intend to accuse any alliance as I firmly believe that no alliance (or group of) can be clearly/precisely associated with the problem. Mixing in-game entities with an issue that has all to do with just the players wouldn't IMHO be conductive to improve the situation. In this forum I am not government of anything and there's no GPA here.
I guess that you wanted to imply that this "lecture", as you called it, is about the Mushroom Kingdom. That's not the case, as it's about [i]players[/i]. Just like there's no GPA here, there's no MK either. There are respectful players in the MK and there are disrespectful players in other alliances, involving any specific alliance would defeat the very purpose of my posting.

I don't intend to pass judgment on people, but just on behaviours. I don't rule out the possibility that a few/some/many people may improve their behaviour because we have a civil and constructive discussion about things. People change, often for good: why should I give up hope?

Finally, the ivory tower. I don't want things to change in the game, as it's not the game I am even talking of. The limited time I am willing to spend for in-game features is already taken by my little in-game projects, and if I wanted to expand it I'd go look for a better cause than introducing RL motives in IC activities.
I am on the other hand already "actively working" toward my goals regarding this community, as a RL entity: that's exactly what I am doing by starting this discussion.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1329832848' post='2925098']
I can agree with the sentiment here, and I have always held Jerdge in high respect, however I have issues with a government member of what is the largest alliance in the game, passing judgment on others, when neither he, nor his alliance, are willing to do anything about it other than issue a lecture clearly pointed in one direction. If you want things to change, you have to actively work toward that goal. Giving a speech from within your "neutral" ivory tower is kind of BS, frankly.
[/quote]

Then how I say I agree 100% with every word he just typed and call it good? Valhalla = not neutral, farthest thing from it, actually.

EDIT: and the addendum above.

Edited February 21, 2012 by ChairmanHal

[pezstar]

I understand where you're coming from... I just wonder if you aren't overly optimistic about things. The Cyberverse has been in this position before. The UJP was quite similar to what we're looking at now. No amount of talking, pleading, or earnest appeals did a thing to curb that, and war became necessary. It's actually kind of silly and condescending that you think you can show up and say "Hey. Stop it!" and that's going to change anything at all.

Well. That's one issue. My other issue is that you are only an observer, and are unwilling to participate in the politics of the world. You are willing only to post a little essay, similar to this one, every few months telling those who DO participate what you think the problems are. It makes me roll my eyes because you are one of the few people in a position to actually help others do something about it, and you don't.

[pezstar]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1329835883' post='2925118']
Then how I say I agree 100% with every word he just typed and call it good? Valhalla = not neutral, farthest thing from it, actually.

EDIT: and the addendum above.
[/quote]


It's totally fine to agree with him. I agree with him too.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1329827698' post='2925079']
As a side note, people should also think a bit ahead for their own good. Just like you can't go insult and harass people in the street without finding yourself in physical/legal trouble - which are the consequences RL individuals/society enact to protect RL people's dignity and rights
[/quote]

Huh? I tell Red Sox fans to $%&@ off regularly when I attend Yankee games and have never been in any sort of trouble for that. Just an example, but yeah, it's very rare that there are actual consequences for "harassment" outside of high school rule books.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1329834975' post='2925111']
Talk is cheap, either you make a stand via your actions or you can commentate from the sidelines. Your choice.
[/quote]

I see it as an individual choice. One that if made by enough of us, will make those who oppose it uncomfortable enough that either they learn to conform or or go find respawning stations in their favorite FPS to hang out at so they run up a kill count they can brag to the RL friends about. CN has a big game table and everyone is invited, but arseclowns need to go find something else to do, frankly.

[jerdge]

[color=blue][b]FAQs![/b][/color] added to the OP [i](copy below)[/i].
[spoiler][i](FAQs may be better organized if need be.)[/i]

[list][*][color=blue][b]Q. Any mocking/derailing/other content-less post ("you're an attention whore" [i]BAAAAAWING[/i] included)[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b]

[*][color=blue][b]Q. What's the purpose of the OP?[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] I wrote the OP to express my point of view over CN being used as a vehicle for disrespecting other players. My specific focus is on terminology and the base concepts of the issue: there's a lot of confusion about both, and that confusion damages the ability of players to react and to work together to defend the quality of this playground.
You can also read the OP as a sort of "appeal" to players, to invite them to behave respectfully and also to suggest that not only they should, but they [i]can[/i] ask that to their fellow players.
There's also an attempt to deconstruct a couple of propaganda lines that are very often used to dismiss the problem.
Basically, it's a struggle to clear what it is we're actually talking of.

[*][color=blue][b]Q. Why don't you just name / fight the alliances you're accusing of this?[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] I don't intend to accuse any alliance as I firmly believe that no alliance (or group of) can be clearly/precisely associated with the problem. Mixing in-game entities with an issue that has all to do with just the players wouldn't IMHO be conductive to improve the situation.

[*][color=blue][b]Q. HA! You're talking of Alliance X / "we both know who"![/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] That's not the case: it's about [i]players[/i]. There are respectful players in every alliance: involving any specific alliance would defeat the very purpose of my posting.

[*][color=blue][b]Q. Nothing will change / There will always be some abuse / This won't persuade anyone[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] Things continue to change, there's no reason to think that they suddenly stopped right now. People also change over time, often for good: why should I give up hope? Some people may improve their behaviour because we have a civil and constructive discussion about things. At any rate I prefer to keep trying.

[*][color=blue][b]Q. Why do you think we should suddenly listen to you and change?[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] Most of the ideas anyone ever had were learned from someone else, whatever is in the OP included. This means that I am just passing stuff along, and also that some ideas that I or the following posters throw into the discussion may take roots and bring some good fruit. Nobody is certainly going to learn anything if we all shut up because it's "condescending" to have opinions.

[*][color=blue][b]Q. Talk is cheap, do something about it.[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] This [i]is[/i] doing something about it. How else do you think I could invite the community of players to discuss this issue? Are you going to invite me at your home for a cup of coffee? What's your budget for my flight?

[*][color=blue][b]Q. I meant: talk is cheap, do something about it [i]in game[/i].[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] I don't want things to change in the game, as it's not the game I am even talking of. The limited time I am willing to spend for in-game features is already taken by my little in-game projects, and if I wanted to expand it I'd go look for a better cause than introducing RL motives in IC activities.

[*][color=blue][b]Q. You could help/participate and you just post some essay every now and then instead.[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] I do what I can, I am not paid to do this full time.

[*][color=blue][b]Q. I meant: You could help/participate [i]in game[/i].[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] I don't want things to change in the game, as it's not the game I am even - [i]ohwait[/i]

[*][color=blue][b]Q. This is like the N[sup]th[/sup] "can't we all just get along" post by jerdge.[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] Since there are that many I am sure you can link at least a few recent [i]threads[/i] that I started or that just are centered on this matter.

[*][color=blue][b]Q. Stop accusing people / being condescending[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] I don't intend to pass judgment on people, but just on behaviours.

[*][color=blue][b]Q. I mean that you're [i]really[/i] condescending, you moron.[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] I know, I just can't help it. Bear with me, I also have qualities!

[*][color=blue][b]Q. AH! I can actually be mean IRL too and get away with it.[/b][/color]
[b]A.[/b] [i]WOOOOOOSHHHHHH!!!![/i]

[/list][/spoiler]

[Alterego]

5 years of peole asking didnt work. This wont work too.

[pezstar]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1329837794' post='2925126']
Huh? I tell Red Sox fans to $%&@ off regularly when I attend Yankee games and have never been in any sort of trouble for that. Just an example, but yeah, it's very rare that there are actual consequences for "harassment" outside of high school rule books.
[/quote]

The best time I ever had was at Fenway Park in the bleachers seats at a Sox Yankee game, getting drunk and pissing off the Yankees fans so much they left.

[sammykhalifa]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1329837794' post='2925126']
Huh? I tell Red Sox fans to $%&@ off regularly when I attend Yankee games and have never been in any sort of trouble for that. Just an example, but yeah, it's very rare that there are actual consequences for "harassment" outside of high school rule books.
[/quote]


It doesn't stop the fact that some of the things we see around here would probably get someone RL punched in the face. You sound pretty brave when you're in Yankee stadium, but I bet you wouldn't do that in Boston.

I don't understand why more people can't play an ingame bad guy without all of the external trash. I don't know why it's so hard just to treat people as you would if you were face-to-face with them.

[Augustus Autumn]

Jerge, like I said to Roq, methodology aside good on your for doing what you feel is right. Personally, I couldn't agree more with your view of the state of interpersonal relations at this level of CN. The message will be ignored for the most part and the messenger will be shot, but it needed to be said.

[Hereno]

I'm not averse to treating people like !@#$ IC, but I don't hold the same IC grudges when OOC not talking about game-related stuff. Since when was that being a moralist? I thought that's what everybody did.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='sammykhalifa' timestamp='1329839203' post='2925136']
It doesn't stop the fact that some of the things we see around here would probably get someone RL punched in the face. You sound pretty brave when you're in Yankee stadium, but I bet you wouldn't do that in Boston.[/quote]

Doesn't that make my analogy all the more fitting, though?

(I've done it in Boston too, although for a different sport. Was one of the few times in my life I was legitimately scared for my own safety.)

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1329837794' post='2925126']
Huh? I tell Red Sox fans to $%&@ off regularly when I attend Yankee games and have never been in any sort of trouble for that. Just an example, but yeah, it's very rare that there are actual consequences for "harassment" outside of high school rule books.[/quote]

Dude, in that part of the country people tell each other to $%&@ off as a way to say "hi".

A little verbal ball busting is expected between fans--so long as it doesn't spill out into the field of play. However, we're not fans, we're the players. Run down a player's kids on the opposing team enough while you are standing at first base, I'm guaranteeing you'll get spiked or be wearing a 90 mph fastball on your ear piece before the 7th inning stretch. Thus, a certain amount of decorum during the game is enforced. What's being asked for here is the same amount of decorum without the threat of RL physical injury.