Jump to content
jerdge

Of fair play and respect

Recommended Posts

I find "in game" and "out of game" to be a better distinction than "in character" and "out of character". How many people here actually try to roleplay as a character? You can attack how someone plays the game without attacking them in general. Most people a play a game different than how they would play real life situations, and to a decent number of people that applies to how they interact with people within the game.

Many people take attacks against them within the context of the game on a personal level (personal outside of the game) when they shouldn't. Or assume that being disrespectful while playing the game is the same as being disrespectful when not playing the game. Some amount of disrespect and antagonism between players ("in game") is necessary to create conflict and keep the game interesting.

I'm against bringing in out of game stuff to harass people. When you wish harm on people outside of the game, you're going too far.

Edited by Azaghul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am on a device with limited posting capability, I'll update the OP later on.

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1329863488' post='2925263']For some reason, I don't buy your strategy of avoiding questions as part of your "FAQs". So, with all do respect, I'll ignore them and actually respond to your overall broad point.
<SNIP>[/quote]
The FAQs are meant to answer questions, but avoiding repeating things over and over.
Every single point you made, complacency included, was already addressed in the FAQs, and I won't repeat them here.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1329864951' post='2925273']<SNIP>[/quote]
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.

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1329865340' post='2925277']I'm all about the exact opposite of the OP. If someone wants to screw with me, declare on me. Otherwise, shut the $%&@ up.[/quote]
Arguments already counter argued in the OP/FAQs. If you want to contribute to the discussion you should read the thread, especially the OP.

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1329867719' post='2925290']I'm so glad there's a thread on here about fair play and respect....I'd hate to see this game become affected by outside means, whether within the forums or within the game. The definition of 'neutrality' has become a hilarious rape-fest in certain instances.[/quote]
I guess that with your sarcasm you mean that this discussion is off-game and it shouldn't try affect it. 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? The answer isn't in your doublethink.
I don't get what you mean when you define an attitude as a "rape-fest", nor what that has to do with this discussion, maybe you can explain.

[quote name='Tir Nan Og' timestamp='1329868042' post='2925292']Everyone should do away with CBs and just attack everyone and $/@( up. Words words words.... Do something about it if you don like it.[/quote]
Arguments already counter argued in the OP/FAQs. If you want to contribute to the discussion you should read the thread, especially the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My time is also over for now, I'll continue later on, starting from the first non-addressed issue.

Edited by jerdge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jerdge is correct that such opposition to "OOC moralism" is pervasive in [i]every[/i] alliance, regardless of what some may want us to believe.

And until the kiddies are no longer safe behind their computer screens, nothing is going to change this fact. People will be people and will, in a lack of all authoritative consequences, revert to the dismal state of nature as Hobbes would say. This unfortunately includes treating others as either non or subhuman, or just in general with a lack of respect that they deserve as people.

Edited by VladimirLenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1329897078' post='2925490']
I don't get what you mean when you define an attitude as a "rape-fest", nor what that has to do with this discussion, maybe you can explain.
[/quote]

Nor do I. The amount of bourbon that was coursing through my bloodstream at the moment that was posted might explain my choice of words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to say, Jerdge, but your entire thread reeks of hypocrisy. You are claiming to defend others against those who do not offer a minimal respect for others, but at the same time, you are not offering any level of respect to those who do not play by your rules. You may say that they've lost their right to be respected through their actions, but most of the OOC attackers you despise feel that through the character failings of their targets, their targets have also lost the right to be respected.

Your "embassy" to the Mushroom Kingdom forums failed because you were not willing to meet them half-way. You constantly treated them as children, because you had the perception that your model of social mores was more correct than theirs, and consequently they gave you no heed. You did not allow them any validity to their claims or to their perspectives, and simply evangelized as though they were a bunch of barbarians. They're not. They are likely more erudite and learned than you are; simply because they are nihilists does not mean that they have no culture. If they prefer an alternate mode of social engagement, that does not necessarily make them inferior.

====

As far as your threats go, one insinuation I will not discuss because I am unsure whether or not that is allowed within the rules of this forum. The other threat is that you are implying something to the extent of EZI, which was thrown out with Karma, I believe, 3 years ago. As far as morality goes, this is beyond the pale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ah Instr.
That's [i]really[/i] putting words in my mouth.
7/10 for the idea and the execution, 8/10 for the respectable effort.

(I'll get back to your post in order, after the other ones, but you deserved a shoutout.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Instr' timestamp='1329921332' post='2925555']
I'm sorry to say, Jerdge, but your entire thread reeks of hypocrisy. You are claiming to defend others against those who do not offer a minimal respect for others, but at the same time, you are not offering any level of respect to those who do not play by your rules. You may say that they've lost their right to be respected through their actions, but most of the OOC attackers you despise feel that through the character failings of their targets, their targets have also lost the right to be respected.
[/quote]
Why should OOC attackers be met halfway? That kind of attitude that people have a right to use OOC attacks on someone at all has no place in this game, a lot of people would rather quit when they feel the attacks are starting to reach an OOC level towards them rather than deal with it, which is bad for the game when we have a group of players causing others they dislike to quit by bringing up OOC stuff.

I'm surprised to see anyone defending OOC attacks or even arguing with the OP on this, guess it just proves why the OP was needed when we have people with attitudes like this.

Edited by Methrage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ooc attackers ooc attacks ooc attackers ooc attacks ooc attackers ooc attacks ooc attackers ooc attacks ooc attackers ooc attacks ooc attackers ooc attacks kiddies

i can't wait for the next range of buzzwords

Edited by Voytek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[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]

I totally agree. It is like baseball(which was brought up earlier lol). We are the players and we are playing the game. We do have fans(your peanut gallery who aren't involved in the situation but adds a remark-some non relevant to the matter at hand), the players(those in a situation) and your umpires(the Admin Staff). You never see players on the in-field talk about the opposing teams batters life, what they do for a living, how they raise their kid, etc. That isn't anyone's busy but to play the game. They dont have to respect each other but they also dont treat each other like $hit. They all play the game they love ignoring the peanut gallery but, if you let them get in your heads.. Your looking at a nasty situation.

That is my view on all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1329870665' post='2925316']
What about Masochists?
[/quote]Masochists make my head spin. You've got me, I don't have a good answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1329909813' post='2925523']
Here's a novel concept: Don't dump out your purse in an internet simulation.Problem solved.
[/quote]Just because someone dumps out their purse does not mean a response is necessary or in any shape justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1329984273' post='2926402']
Just because someone dumps out their purse does not mean a response is necessary or in any shape justified.
[/quote]
In a civil or even moderately mature world you would be spot on, but we both know that isn't the case in our little world here. Just because Vanilla Napalms advice shouldn't be necessary doesn't diminish the fact that in CN it is good advice.
This last months activity reminds me so much like the run up to UJW, a shame really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' timestamp='1329868984' post='2925300'][quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1329827698' post='2925079']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.)[/quote]
This is what I have trouble with and it comes down to the definition of what respect is all about (which is obviously quite difficult, because there are many types of respect). For example, I don't respect some of the players here (and don't believe they deserve my respect) because of the way that they use words or because of their actions. The key premise here is respect is not and should not be a given - it can be freely granted, allocated in a miserly fashion, be hard-earnt, lost in a flash, regained through forgiveness and vaporised all over again. RL human beings [b]don't[/b] have to automatically have my respect and enforcing respect of others (beyond the rules set down by the administrators of the game and moderators of these forums) runs against the notion of being able to freely choose how you relate to others.

Edit: clarification[/quote]
You identified and addressed two fundamental problems: what respect is and if it's a right. Very [i]very[/i] well done, it's really refreshing to read posts like your one.

I didn't define what respect I am talking of, and the mention of Kant was confusing. To justify my angle, that was just the quickest way to get to the meat of my discourse, by deducting from a general axiom (people must be respected) the corollary of the need of respecting them as in peacefully coexisting (if possible).
Because yes, that's all the respect I am talking of here: to try coexist peacefully 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. "The Game" is also populated by a lot of players that are annoyed or disgusted by personal attacks on RL personae, and they don't want to assist to it anywhere in "The Game": these too, and not just the targets of personal attacks, are damaged by disrespectful behaviours.
A major problem is that it's not just that at times people disrespect other ones they have some beef with, but that some people - which I believe to be a minority - [i]have disrespect as their default behaviour[/i]: they don't care at all about the other players, the staff or "The Game", and they don't hesitate in trampling all over everyone else for their own amusement.
I think that respect should instead be the default behaviour. Respect indeed [i]is[/i] a given to me, meaning that it should be given to anyone. That doesn't mean that it's always wrong to harm someone else (more in the "side tracks" below), but just that it's always wrong to do so [i]without a good reason[/i]. Some people will agree with me and some will agree with you/Umar, but I think that we can easily coexist in peace, as none of us claim that disrespect is a given, after all.

I understand that systems of values that have disrespect as the default behaviour - one ignores everyone else's good unless there's a reason to do otherwise - exist. Addressing them from a philosophical point of view would be difficult for me (I'm not really equipped for that), but I don't really "need" to do it. Despite what many have said in their comments, this thread is about [i]doing[/i] more than anything else.

[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.

Here we're just players form around the clock which mostly come here [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109300&view=findpost&p=2926322"]«to escape real life, not to replay it all over again»[/url]. It's a real shame that social pressure drives away the respectful people and not the disrespectful (the "sociopath") ones: I want that to change and I want it to happen as soon as possible. This is what I fight for, and yes, it's about "enforcing respect of others (beyond the rules set down by the administrators of the game and moderators of these forums)" if need be.
Note that, contrary to your/UMar's statements, that's not an infringement on anyone's rights.
I agree that one has the right to freely choose how they relate to others, in that there's not only one acceptable way of doing it, but relating with others to trample on [i]their[/i] rights is not a right, it's an abuse of one's freedom (not just because we use the term "freedom" it necessarily follows that it's always good).
The usage of freedom doesn't come without consequences either. The implied claim that disrespecting people should not be restricted, to not infringe of anyone's freedom "to choose how you relate to others", is the same of claiming that one should be free to act without consequences.
Things simply don't work, and they couldn't possibly work like that, because that theory is easily proven to be inconsistent: someone else could then freely choose to relate with you by preventing you to freely choose how you relate with others, and you couldn't even protest because they would be exercising the same freedom you were advocating for yourself.

[i]What I mean with "The Game":[/i]
[spoiler]With "The Game" I am talking of the game at large - both the "hard" part (in-game features) and the "soft" part (game-based political and social interaction, metagaming, alliances as social bodies, their IRC chans and forums etc.)
How we are to map the confines of "The Game" is a critical issue that must probably be addressed; the very short version of my take is that IC (the characters) and OOC (us as players of the game, or metagaming) should [i]both[/i] be kept separated from RL (everything else).
I think that it's fine if people that have an IC issue, or an OOC issue about how someone is interacting with "The Game", bring them into it.
It's bad if people bring RL issues into "The Game" or if they use "The Game" to harass others from a RL angle.[/spoiler]

[i]Side tracks about my general axiom on respect:[/i]
[spoiler]That human beings must be respected - as an ethical imperative - is an axiom to me. In short, I think it can't be proven (the right adjective is probably "[i]anapodictic[/i]").
I am fundamentally pessimistic about finding a real complete philosophical/ethical common ground with people that disagree with my stance, but I don't advocate for intolerance either, as long as peaceful coexistence is possible.

It takes a lot of lunacy and absurdity to treat other people like they weren't of the same basic nature of oneself.
My idea of respect is strongly linked with the idea of being able to see people for what they are, recognizing that they are my peers (from an ethical standpoint) and that they deserve to be treated with justice - i.e. their good is important. If I think that another person's actions are evil or dangerous it's justified to act against them, despite the negative consequences that that person may then experience, but I think that it's unjustified to damage anyone without a good reason, and it's especially wrong if done for [i]petty[/i] reasons (= anything based on/permitted according to the premise that other people's good/dignity "is not important").
A pragmatic definition of "respecting" is in this context "acting according to the principle that other people's good is important, and that it shouldn't be harmed without serious justification".

Considering respect an imperative doesn't mean that indifference or disrespect are unacceptable evils to fight with fire either. Indifference is a necessity of modern society, as we simply relate with too many people to handle every relationship with deep respect, and disrespect is just one of the mistakes we all routinely incur into. From a practical point of view I try to be respectful when it is really important, i.e. when the interaction goes beyond the mere crossing paths with someone else, and I just mind my own business otherwise. People that commit mistakes shouldn't be crucified, but insisting that it's OK to harm others without reason/for fun shouldn't be accepted.

Unless people claim that disrespecting everyone is a "right", I can generally get along with them very well.[/spoiler]

[i]Why IC means are ineffective, and why "words" can work.[/i]
[spoiler]IC means can't work. My RL "crusade" against RL attacks, for example, may annoy some people, but they can't do anything in-game to stop me here. Nations can't be destroyed, and I can continue to post as long as I have a nation. As I give much more importance to RL issues than to any IC or OOC issue, no amount of improper IC (or even OOC) pressure can convince me to stop doing this. I say this, BTW, just in case someone was dumb enough to try anything like that ([i]just free some more of my time, lol[/i]).
The exact same is valid for people that engage in RL attacks: even completely destroying them in the game wouldn't remove their ability to do harm in RL, and (as most don't really care about the game at all) many would barely notice any difference.

"Words" can instead work. Going along with my previous analogy, if everyone (or even just a vast majority of players) started contesting me and my stances, inviting me to shut up and go away, and saying that they instead want to continue to offend whoever comes by, I'd simply go away. Why should I waste my time with people that don't want to listen to me?
Again, the same is valid for people that take pleasure in their RL attacks. If they were surrounded by a deafening chorus of "wtf are you doing morons stop it!" every time they started pulling their crap, they'd all conform or move to something else. We just need for them to be a small minority for it to work, and I am going by the assumption that "sociopaths" [i]are[/i] a small minority.

Right now, what works in their favour is just indifference. A lot of players are indifferent to the victims of RL attacks and they're afraid of losing their pleasant pastime if they dare contest powerful players that also happen to commit RL attacks. This leads to deafening silence on part of the indifferent ones.
It's not new, the mechanism is the same that was in place when EZI was tolerated. However, it took just a few people to start being vocal against that, for an avalanche to form and to later obligate the EZI enforcers to stop doing that. The attempts to marginalize or bury the protests with spin of several sorts all failed, at the end.
Social norms [i]can[/i] change, and this thread is aimed at helping them change.[/spoiler]

Edited by jerdge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK to avoid double posting, but excessively huge posts are bad. Here is a split from the above one.

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1329869055' post='2925302']Considering that he is making it an in-game issue, I think he should get off of his neutral high-horse and actually attempt to bring about in-game change against those he disagrees with. The same way, you know, the rest of us do.[/quote]
Besides what I wrote above in the previous post, I'll just add that your argument is already counter argued in the OP/FAQs. If you want to contribute to the discussion you should read the thread, especially the OP.


[quote name='wes the wise' timestamp='1329870490' post='2925314']Follow the Golden Rule my friends.
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:12)
"Do to no one what you yourself dislike." (Tobit 4:15)

I agree with the OP. The issue I have is that people sometimes forget that the person on the other side has feelings too, and you just might ruin their day. Be decent toward people, in this game.[/quote]
I agree with your conclusion, but I can't help pointing out that your Bible references don't add up with it in a direct way. The Bible says to treat the others like you would like to be treated yourself, while your conclusion is about caring of the personal subjectivity and fragility of others, arguably treating each in a different way according to their individuality, which is different from your one.
Now, of course it could be argued that you should treat everyone else by caring about their subjective feelings, just like one wishes to be understood and treated for what subjective feelings that one has.
I just thought that it was worth to comment about this and I hope that I didn't add confusion. :)

Edited by jerdge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1329870665' post='2925316']What about Masochists?[/quote]
It's OK to treat them as they like to, I don't get what has to do with treating people the way they [i]don't[/i] want to be treated in, anyway.


[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1329870932' post='2925320']You haven't stopped to think about the fact that, perhaps, your unnecessary usage of Bible quotes in a CN post has ruined my day? :blink:[/quote]
[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1329871485' post='2925325'][quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1329827698' post='2925079']You can spread venom only so much before it's time to put you down: [/quote]
Fundamental problem (one of two your post has), is you're assuming there is some kind of set standard for what such 'venom' may be. In reality, there isn't, and it's entirely subjective. To one person looking on, the majority of 'mean' things you see on here are laughably mild compared to real life, not even close to worthy of second glance. To another, its the most shocking thing since that darn Elvis Presley started shaking his hips all over the place down at the county fair. Everyone has different standards as a product of who they are and what they have seen, none being better than another. Obviously, like anything else, there are exceptions which everyone will know by sight, but other then that it's just not possible to use any kind of label like this.[/quote]
It would be excessive to try remove any RL reference from the game ([url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109250&view=findpost&p=2926580"]"The Game"[/url]), we can just be content with avoiding intentionally offending anyone, and with apologizing if we unintentionally (really) did it, can't we?
[i](Was yours a serious comment, Bob?)[/i]



[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1329871485' post='2925325']I'll admit I never really got the whole OOC-IC distinction beyond what I needed to grasp to follow the rules, so the amount of importance some people put into it has always bothered me a little bit (which is why I'm posting, I usually stay away from these type of topics). To think that someone literally changes their personality when they post in a certain subsection of a forum is a ridiculous fiction in my opinion, so I've always gone on the premise of people are who they are, whether it be here, irc, in pm, or on the street. If someone has an attitude or personality that gets them made fun of in real life, it will probably be no different here since that's human nature. Slapping a different name on yourself doesn't change how people react to you or your shortcomings, whatever they may be. So, when you ask others to 'respect the OOC/IC line', unless your talking about the very few extreme situations we've had, you're asking people to respect a facade people made up to protect themselves from normal social responses, and that's not going to happen here nor anywhere else.[/quote]
Impero, the problem here is not about Role Playing, OOC and RL aren't interchangeable, and this thread is not about the IC/OOC line, but rather about the game/RL line.
We're here talking of those "extreme situations", and the fundamental disagreement is probably that I think they're a bit too many to dismiss them as "very few" (they're not in big numbers from an absolute point of view, but they're too many relatively to how absolutely hateful they are).



[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1329871485' post='2925325'][quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1329827698' post='2925079']RL consequences for RL offences, if that makes sense.[/quote]
Honestly? No, in the context it doesn't.[/quote]
I hope that the above part explains the misunderstanding on the context, and how that may actually make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every day more of real life creeps in to the game. It used to be that when you played you were merely an IRC nickname and a forum account. Real life attacks were difficult in that no one knew anything about a person unless they dumped their purse as it was so succinctly put above.

Now though the game has evolved. Skype, video chat, cell phone numbers for military alerts, Steam IDs being exchanged. Heck even the admin staff wants you to use your Facebook account to promote the game. Real life is coming in to the game and doing so because the community at large seems to want it. You bring in more aspects of your self in to the game or connect it to the game and you bring in more out of game feuds and connect them to the game as well. That's just how it works.

The closest thing to scarcity in this game are the slots of tech sellers. We play the game with a perspective to max stats, so most alliances end up with similar economic policies, so nothing to argue about there. Trade circles are fairly uniform and we have a historical disapproval of using the senate sanction, except against rogues, so nothing to cause drama there really. There really are no economic reasons to fight, as evidenced by the old casus belli of "Breathing our air".

It used to be you had a rivalry with a specific alliance or you had an ideology that did something like demand you controlled an entire team. We even got a global war out of raiders versus non raiders. Now though in game ideology has gone down. You don't see giant essays on Francoism anymore.

What we have evolved is the idea of the massive treaty web and fighting 5 v 1 (namely in the upper tier where wars are won). This means social ties are required to win. You have to have strong ties with blocmates, with key bridge alliances (as in TOP-MK and how their treaty bridges two blocs). Being social is key. It's easier to be social when you actually get to know the other person more and build more bonds. So now you video chat, now you play games together, CN has in some ways just become one giant guild.

The one problem with that is that of course now that we all know each other better, the fights are going to be uglier. The ugliest fights are always the ones that occur in the same family where you know all the bodies are buried. So asking the community to condemn OOC attacks becomes more and more fruitless everyday. Everyday people reveal more of their OOC selves and give people more and more leverage to use against them. Human nature is ugly and when it comes time to fight people use all the tools they have.

As I mentioned social ties have become how you win wars now and even what starts wars. Look at the MK vs Sparta rivalry. The whole Pandoras Box vs SF/XX thing was pretty definitively settled when SF turned out be a paper tiger (some of those SF alliances were tripping over each other to surrender). Now MK and Sparta could have a rivalry where Sparta is unhappy over losing and is rebuilding. Yet instead we have Roquentin who feels he was badmouthed and treated poorly in a social sense as the voice of Sparta. As opposed to any kind of focus on revenge for this recent war or the like, the public drumbeat centers around both sides gleefully dumping all kinds of dirty laundry all over the OWF. Ranging from screenshots to rating individual Umbrella members. The whole thing is close to "Hell hath no fury like a scorned ex" and really centers more around OOC social interactions on both sides than it does any IC context.

Why? Because that is how Doomhouse sticks together via a social network. You never see a giant wall of text from MK members on something like Marioism or Yoshism followed by a bunch of o/'s from other Doomhouse members.

So if you want to end OOC attacks go push in game ideology as a replacement for social centered gaming. Become a contributor to in game ideology and help it become more attractive than social ties as a way to roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1330006550' post='2926603']
It's OK to treat them as they like to, I don't get what has to do with treating people the way they [i]don't[/i] want to be treated in, anyway.
[/quote]
That was in the context of the golden rule: "Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself". It's a pretty good rule until you come across people who enjoy being treated in a way that others would find unwelcome. If a masochist treated everyone how they wished to be treated themselves, well, they'd probably rack up some assault charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1330017439' post='2926749']That was in the context of the golden rule: "Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself". It's a pretty good rule until you come across people who enjoy being treated in a way that others would find unwelcome. If a masochist treated everyone how they wished to be treated themselves, well, they'd probably rack up some assault charges.[/quote]
Not if you don't restrict "doing" to the mere physical acts. A masochist [i]wants[/i] to be hurt because that's his subjective desire, but he could also want to second others' subjective desires, thus [i]not[/i] hurting them if/when they [i]don't[/i] wish to be hurt. As more or less said here:
[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1330005850' post='2926594']Now, of course it could be argued that you should treat everyone else by caring about their subjective feelings, just like one wishes to be understood and treated for what subjective feelings that one has.[/quote]

[hr]

OP updated with better organized FAQs.

[b]New FAQs:[/b]
[spoiler]In «On basic concepts (or "what are talking of?")»:
[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. 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].)


In «On purpose and strategy»:
[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. 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. 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].)


In «Miscellaneous»:
[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.[/spoiler]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1329990607' post='2926450']In a civil or even moderately mature world you would be spot on, but we both know that isn't the case in our little world here.[/quote]Just because it is common does not make it right, nor does it make it something to shrug off.

[quote]Just because Vanilla Napalms advice shouldn't be necessary doesn't diminish the fact that in CN it is good advice.[/quote]It is good advice, but it also takes the blame for a situation and shifts it from the guilty to the victim. By which I mean it no longer becomes the harassers fault for the harassment, but the harassed's fault for opening the window.

Which, to me, is nonsensical and about as inherently wrong as something in this game can be.

[quote]This last months activity reminds me so much like the run up to UJW, a shame really.[/quote]If by shame you mean an utterly repugnant development, then yeah I agree with you.

Edited by Fallen Fool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1330029036' post='2926932']

It is good advice, but it also takes the blame for a situation and shifts it from the guilty to the victim. By which I mean it no longer becomes the harassers fault for the harassment, but the harassed's fault for opening the window.

Which, to me, is nonsensical and about as inherently wrong as something in this game can be.

[/quote]

Hey look someone else gets it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1330029036' post='2926932']
Just because it is common does not make it right, nor does it make it something to shrug off.

It is good advice, but it also takes the blame for a situation and shifts it from the guilty to the victim. By which I mean it no longer becomes the harassers fault for the harassment, but the harassed's fault for opening the window.

Which, to me, is nonsensical and about as inherently wrong as something in this game can be.

If by shame you mean an utterly repugnant development, then yeah I agree with you.
[/quote]
I didn't say it should be shrugged off. I think you miss understand the point of what I was saying, it was never my intention to blame the victim, rather I was pointing out there are ways to avoid being the vicitm, akin to, lock your doors when parking in the city.

I agree with utterly repugnant, which as I said is a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the fact that most of you seem to be reeling at the loss of your group therapy sessions as well as discouraging critical thinking en masse, it is at the end of the day my choice about whether or not I call someone out for something they have done. I don't care about the IC/OOC line at all, and your insistence that I should is, to me, akin to calling critical thinking thoughtcrime. (Interesting how Polar members tend to think that way.)

I think the IC/OOC divide is contrived outside the context of the forums. If you don't want your RL persona examined, [i]don't post it online[/i]. The younger set learned this in kindergarten, and for the older generation it should be common sense. When someone has exposed something about themselves, I will by nature examine it from an analytical perspective and then express what I think about it. The fact that it is OOC is immaterial, and in fact, carries more gravitas for me than IC actions because it's actually happening.

Furthermore, I reject the proposition that everyone in the world is deserving of my respect. They are not and I do not intend to give it to them, for respect is earned. I will happily give someone the benefit of the doubt, but I reserve the right to give and take my respect, and additionally reserve the right to determine what I give and take it for.

Jerdge, I condemn the fact that you would even presume to impose your version of morality on others. It is absolutely disgusting and anathema to everything I stand for as a person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...