Jump to content
jerdge

Of fair play and respect

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1330038165' post='2927037']
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.
[/quote]

Maybe MK should not investigate the RL persona's of nation rulers either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quinoa Rex, considering you have stuff I can dig up too, would like me to bring it out? I haven't done it to Crymson despite being able to, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1330042143' post='2927087']
Quinoa Rex, considering you have stuff I can dig up too, would like me to bring it out? I haven't done it to Crymson despite being able to, either.
[/quote]
Please do. You'll find I'm not actually very interesting and am also quite open about myself. I'd remind you that I've exposed numerous facets of my RL persona to the rest of MK including my phone number and come out no worse for the wear, so I'm thoroughly interested in what trifles you might have to try and 'hurt' me with.

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1330041981' post='2927086']
Maybe MK should not investigate the RL persona's of nation rulers either.
[/quote]

Evidently you have difficulties with reading comprehension, because I don't remember saying anything about MK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1330038165' post='2927037']
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.
[/quote]
People shouldn't need to closely guard their RL identity because people like you think using people's RL information against them is fair game, it should be common sense that people play this game to have fun and using people's RL information to gain an in-game advantage against them is unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1330045972' post='2927135']
People shouldn't need to closely guard their RL identity because people like you think using people's RL information against them is fair game, it should be common sense that people play this game to have fun and using people's RL information to gain an in-game advantage against them is unacceptable.
[/quote]
I didn't say anything about using it for an in-game advantage. Reread it and try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1330046261' post='2927144']
I didn't say anything about using it for an in-game advantage. Reread it and try again.
[/quote]
Whether its for revenge or you wanting to be a detective, I still don't think you should try digging up people's RL information to use against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1330047268' post='2927161']
Whether its for revenge or you wanting to be a detective, I still don't think you should try digging up people's RL information to use against them.
[/quote]
You've just put approximately 27 words in my mouth. It's not very becoming of you. Please don't do it.

I've never gone digging for kicks; I've merely used information presented to me to make a call on how I feel about it and, if I feel it's worth it, to call the individual out on it. "Using it against them" is completely inaccurate and presenting it in such a way is intellectually dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1330049003' post='2927192']
You've just put approximately 27 words in my mouth. It's not very becoming of you. Please don't do it.

I've never gone digging for kicks; I've merely used information presented to me to make a call on how I feel about it and, if I feel it's worth it, to call the individual out on it. "Using it against them" is completely inaccurate and presenting it in such a way is intellectually dishonest.
[/quote]
I wasn't putting words in your mouth, people can read your post to see what you said. I was giving you the opportunity to clarify your thoughts by saying what came to mind as I was reading your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How dare you hold her accountable for what her words really mean.

Also, that's great you share those details. That doesn't mean the rest of us are obligated to offer them up to you, or that it gives you a liscence to go to town with them with/without the intent of doing harm.

Edited by IYIyTh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1330058314' post='2927277']
How dare you hold her accountable for what her words really mean.

Also, that's great you share those details. That doesn't mean the rest of us are obligated to offer them up to you, or that it gives you a liscence to go to town with them with/without the intent of doing harm.
[/quote]

It's a little sickening at this point watching you grovel to mediocrity.

My words mean exactly what they say. Trying to hold me accountable for something I didn't say is, again, intellectually dishonest. Speaking of things I never said, I did not say that you were obligated to offer anything. In fact, I said the exact opposite.

Let's go for an example, because you seem to be having a really hard time with this and I want to help drill it into your head. Let's say someone here admits that they are a real-life neo-Nazi. I receive this information, process it, and inform this individual that I find them detestable and question their upbringing. That doesn't make me fundamentally wrong, that makes me [i]human[/i]. Hiding behind your in-game persona does not absolve you of things you do out-of-game, and expecting not to be called on them when you make a spectacle of them and yourself is outright delusional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1330059915' post='2927294']
It's a little sickening at this point watching you grovel to mediocrity.

My words mean exactly what they say. Trying to hold me accountable for something I didn't say is, again, intellectually dishonest. Speaking of things I never said, I did not say that you were obligated to offer anything. In fact, I said the exact opposite.

Let's go for an example, because you seem to be having a really hard time with this and I want to help drill it into your head. Let's say someone here admits that they are a real-life neo-Nazi. I receive this information, process it, and inform this individual that I find them detestable and question their upbringing. That doesn't make me fundamentally wrong, that makes me [i]human[/i]. Hiding behind your in-game persona does not absolve you of things you do out-of-game, and expecting not to be called on them when you make a spectacle of them and yourself is outright delusional.
[/quote]

I find this view strangely inconsistent with your alliances take on other events in recent CN history. See: a few Fark members reacting to evidence of ...oddly specificly similar to your example in NoR. These people were held to the exact opposite standard you've stated should be here.

No one is forcing you, however, or anyone else to look up further information on individuals and attempt to use it against them for "fun." It's a sad joke that violates the whole point of having a clearly defined fine line, as this game explicitly has.

Edited by IYIyTh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1330038165' post='2927037']
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.[/quote]

Lol, how extreme. A well writ and emotionally charged post. However, it does contain a few fallacies.

[quote]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.
[/quote]

Everyone presumes to impose their version of morality on others, you included, no matter how subtle or overt those impositions are. It's called will to power, I'm sure you are familiar with it.

But let's look at what you are saying closer.

You have denoted, decried, and denounced one person's perspective on the issue of respect ect. and yet insist that your own opinions, such as respect is only earned, hold more weight. So if respect is only earned, then how do you treat them before you make a value judgement? Considering that the act of analysis you mentioned happens upon the very first datum received, do you then immediately react to how that first impression makes you feel? Are you outright rude? Or do you conform to the general conventions of most societies and use at least neutral expressions and actions until you get to know them better? Do you wait to alter your style of interaction until you find a trend? Obviously, as you stated that you were gracious enough give people the benefit of the doubt.

Which is exactly what Jerdge said people should do! Have a basic level of decorum as the default mode of interaction.

You stated that you don't care about the IC/OOC line at all, except of course when you post in the IC forums (right?), but outside of those forums you find it contrived. Well, wouldn't it seem a little strange for people in their own home forum, where in-game and real life mixes freely, to completely ignore the RL information of another player who garners considerable attention? It would seem only natural (and impossible not to), as you mentioned, to analyze and make judgement calls regarding them. What you do with that conclusion is dependent on what your own code of conduct decrees.

Again, that is what Jerdge advocated.

I think what is really happening is that you don't like Jerdge and neither do your confederates, and that dislike has caused you to misinterpret what he said as attacks against your belief system, thus igniting your rather vitriolic response. Your bold "you're not the boss of me" response is what psychologists would call reactance.

Now, aside from your reactions to things that really weren't any different from your own views, I'm going to guess from your over all content that the point of divergence is thus:

He stated that one definition of respect was "to try coexist peacefully and to not go look for trouble or for quarreling."

He also stated: "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'.

Both of those statements are based societal conditioning drives. It is the social part of our human nature that allows us to work together as a unit. It creates the norms, mores, laws, customs, and so on. Often at the sacrifice of some personal liberties. It is the many over the self. It is what creates the glue that holds societies together. Emotional responses such as empathy and love are the chemical reactions that reinforce those evolutionary adaptive behaviors.

Another equally powerful force is the drive of the self over others. It is what creates competition, aggression, hoarding, cheating, ambition and so on. It values the gain of the self. Also very important in survival.

The interplay between those two drives is what creates our various in-groups/out-groups, starting at the self as most(ly) important and expanding outward in gradients of importance to degrees determined by one's social conditioning.

If you're like me, you'll find yourself a bit closer to the "self" side. I personally believe a little bit of conflict is good for people. So maybe that is what you believe as well. But are there limits?

To the extremes of both ends you have very dysfunctional behavior. Too far socially and you have groupthink and sacrifice of the individual for the tyranny of the majority. At the other you have sociopathism.


I wrote all that to ask you this: Where along the line of one's self and in-group do YOU place yourself and to what degree are you willing to harm others for your gain in this game? Or real life, even?

See, that is the real question. I play this game to relieve the stress of real life. I want others to do the same and I don't particularly like it when that "suspension of disbelief" is disrupted by outside RL forces. I think the best option when that happens is to first ignore the offender and if they can't get it out of their system, to have them removed.

Regarding people putting their own issues up there, well, some one used baseball as an analogy so I'll continue in that vein, if one of the players runs up to the mic during the national anthem and starts spouting off that they used steroids or cheated on their spouse or what ever, would you then also run onto the field and up to the mic to broadcast your own opinions on that person. No, you wouldn't. And why not? Probably because it would continue to further disrupt the game. The same reason every other player and spectator has gathered.

That's how it should be here.

And as for off-forum actions, if people are using information gained on others by the common connection of this game, even on private forums intended for this game, to harass or harm these targets in any way, especially for the perpetrators amusement or in-game advantage, well these people clearly place themselves and their small minded in-group far along the path of personal profit over the well- being of others and thus can be a threat to any one person or group around them who fall within their sights. Thus they should be eliminated from this game before they can harm anyone else.

I like your posts, so I hope you are not one of those kinds of people.

Edited by Kzoppistan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1330038165' post='2927037'][spoiler]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.[/spoiler][/quote]
Quinoa, I'll later get in detail to your posts too, but first a comment on terminology and a couple of questions.

The line we're talking of separates the game and RL. It's not the IC/OOC line and it's not about role playing having or not to be a shield against anyone expressing their opinion on RL stuff.

The first question is: are you aware that people have been [i]stalked[/i] and then attacked on media that have nothing to do with CN, with negative consequences for their personal life?
Moreover, do you realize - and I refer to a separate instance - that some specific people's real life has been investigated, the (largely incorrect, and defamating) information has been spread and a number of low personal attacks have been perpetrated against them because of that?
I am not talking of what people freely related about them, but of information that has been digged and then either used to reach them in RL and to attack them there, or to gather mobs in CN and to morally lynch them here. I repeat: they have been stalked and then personally attacked.
What's your opinion on these? Do you support stalking and "freely comment" on what information comes out of it?

Another question, on logic.
How it is now that you should be free to critic and attack anyone's RL actions, but it's disgusting and an anathema if [i]I[/i] critic and attack others' RL actions?
How can you possibly claim your unrestricted "right" to disrespectfully say whatever you want about anyone's RL action, being you the only judge of its appropriatedness, at the same time protesting my civil and constructive criticism of others' RL actions, as infringements on your freedom of thought?
Since when freedom of speech is an exclusive of yours?

And finally, since you're so indignated for people putting words into your mouth, when did I say that everyone has to adhere to my own version of morality?
[spoiler]Hint: I am protesting people that continue to impose the effects of their morality/immorality/nihilism/whatever on me and on this community.
Anyone can continue with their ideas as long as that doesn't imply their "right" to crap on me, at that point it's beyond stupid to claim that I shouldn't react.
Another hint: I won't let people paint [i]me[/i] as the aggressor. It's very very easy to shred that argument into pieces and to ridicule the arguing in the process: I suggest trying from another angle.[/spoiler]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1330038165' post='2927037']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.)[/quote]A call for tolerance, or empathy, over issues unrelated to gameplay or ingame politics is not an attack on critical thinking because it's not telling you what to think, it's asking you to reflect on how your actions will affect another person before doing anything.

[quote]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.[/quote]Why is your opinion about someone else's business so utterly necessary that it MUST be expressed regardless of the consequences or potential impact it will have on other people?

Answer? It is not necessary, yet people with your same mindset insert themselves into situations they know next to nothing about in the name of...what? Personal validation? That brief feeling of self-righteousness when you expose the "other" for being different? For having problems you don't share? For being "lolstupid" enough to open themselves up too much?

I just do not understand. People are people to me and, while I may act like a jack ass on occasion, I am reflective enough and have enough humility to realize I'm not perfect, I'll never be perfect, and I'll make some more really !@#$@#$ dumb mistakes before I die. So it makes really hard for me to cast the first stone.

But apparently that's not a problem for you. So congrats?

[quote]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.[/quote]Condemn all you want, but he's attempting to persuade people by articulating his personal views, not sending them to the gulags for holding different opinions. Your disgust is totally unfounded.

Edited by Fallen Fool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the more posts i make on the Open World Forum the more people i'll be able to convince of my position in regards to [thing]
--a dumb person

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1330060809' post='2927304']
I find this view strangely inconsistent with your alliances take on other events in recent CN history. See: a few Fark members reacting to evidence of ...oddly specificly similar to your example in NoR. These people were held to the exact opposite standard you've stated should be here.

No one is forcing you, however, or anyone else to look up further information on individuals and attempt to use it against them for "fun." It's a sad joke that violates the whole point of having a clearly defined fine line, as this game explicitly has.
[/quote]

Myth. Stop trying to get me to say anything about using someone's information against them for fun. I never said it, I'm not going to say it, and watching you try to get me to say it has gotten old.

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1330069813' post='2927393']
I wrote all that to ask you this: Where along the line of one's self and in-group do YOU place yourself and to what degree are you willing to harm others for your gain in this game? Or real life, even?

See, that is the real question. I play this game to relieve the stress of real life. I want others to do the same and I don't particularly like it when that "suspension of disbelief" is disrupted by outside RL forces. I think the best option when that happens is to first ignore the offender and if they can't get it out of their system, to have them removed.

Regarding people putting their own issues up there, well, some one used baseball as an analogy so I'll continue in that vein, if one of the players runs up to the mic during the national anthem and starts spouting off that they used steroids or cheated on their spouse or what ever, would you then also run onto the field and up to the mic to broadcast your own opinions on that person. No, you wouldn't. And why not? Probably because it would continue to further disrupt the game. The same reason every other player and spectator has gathered.

That's how it should be here.

And as for off-forum actions, if people are using information gained on others by the common connection of this game, even on private forums intended for this game, to harass or harm these targets in any way, especially for the perpetrators amusement or in-game advantage, well these people clearly place themselves and their small minded in-group far along the path of personal profit over the well- being of others and thus can be a threat to any one person or group around them who fall within their sights. Thus they should be eliminated from this game before they can harm anyone else.

I like your posts, so I hope you are not one of those kinds of people.
[/quote]

I have no interest in harming someone for in-game gain. That is silly, implies that I care about my internet tough guy-ism way more than I actually do, and I think you'll find that numerous people who you might paint that way are different. In fact, speaking as someone in the "in-group" you allude to, I don't recall having used OOC information recently to gain an advantage in-game. Seriously. If you want me to expand on that, come find me on IRC, as discussing it here would very likely derail this thread, which isn't my intention.

To use your baseball analogy, it would indeed be inappropriate for someone to take the mic. That said, you can be sure that few in the stands would be focusing on the game after that and I can assure you that no one would be ignoring the fact that x person did y thing. It would probably be discussed on some news outlet afterward, even in a "what the hell was that about?" light.

I respect the fact that your reason for playing is a form of escapism, but for some of us it is social, or rather, it is a community that at this point just happens to play Cybernations. Thus we will inevitably be more attuned to things that go on outside of it. Yes, we have our share of misanthropes and ne'er-do-wells, but I would challenge you to find a community that doesn't.

I have to head out now - I'll get to other posts later on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's a simulation game. It's political simulation.

What do politicians do? They dig up dirt on people's personal lives. An "OOC attack" is similar to RL situations where a politician is caught cheating on his secretary. It never has anything to do with the situation, but it's an easy dirty shot.

I used to manipulate the fact that people don't attack on Christmas in CN. Does that count as disrespect/OOC? I know people who have manipulated personal circumstances as a means to gain power. How many times have you heard someone stepping down from gov because of RL? It's not too rare that a friend behind the throne is kindly influencing them to step down and take a break from CN and let them borrow the crown for a moment.

People tend to have this tendency to use OOC as a sort of "peace mode". They spy on someone, reroll, then expect all their sins to be magically forgiven due to the OOC/anti-EZI protection.


However, my stance is that IC shouldn't affect OOC. You should never hate someone for what they did in the game. You shouldn't lose friends over it because it is just a game. And by no means should someone start stalking you on news sites or Facebook making fun of you just because they don't like you in CN.

It's poor taste to make fun of a person IC because of their OOC information. But there are exceptions, especially since in this game you could well use OOC information for IC gain. You can roll someone in the game just because you don't like them outside the game. That happens in a lot of other games. In RP enforced games, it's unacceptable, but CN is not a RPG.

But it should never be the case that you ever get hurt in real life because you give out personal info in the game. There are some cases, which probably count as cyberbullying, and that shouldn't happen. A little trolling is fine, but virtual harassment outside the game shouldn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for being late: I have been busy.
I'll go with serie of short replies, leaving Instr for probably a longer one (probably again in another moment).


[hr]
[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1329872845' post='2925341']Unfortunately, CN has degenerated into a medium for trying to one-up each other with snarky/"clever" jabs (see the second post), and internet humor/lame memes (e.g., do you like caek??). Rather than ostracize those who try to bring the tone down to this level, it seems the community has mostly decided to emulate this behavior. So when you make an IC post, from the voice of an individual who's the ruler of a nation, people can't wrap their heads around it. It really makes me question whether it's worth it to even play anymore, but then I figure that leaving would just make me a part of the problem.[/quote]
Leaving would just mean to give up. You wouldn't become part of the problem, but you wouldn't help any solution to be found. I can understand people that aren't much for Role Play and that don't mind if others don't really post "IC", and I think that ostracism/boycot should be left as last resort only for those people that irreducibly insist in attacking others in RL.

[hr]
[quote name='Proest' timestamp='1329875449' post='2925360']It (OP) was well written but as always, it will change nothing. The status quo is the status quo.[/quote]
Thank you for the praise! (See also the spoiler.)
[spoiler][quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1329827698' post='2925079']
[list][*][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.[/list][/quote][/spoiler]

[hr]
[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]
This is going to become the OP "tl;dr"... :D
Thanks Meth!

[hr]
[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, you 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]
This is also going to be (shamelessly) copy-pasted into the FAQs. Thank you too! :)

[hr]
[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1329896808' post='2925489']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.[/quote]
I agree with everything you wrote, Aza, especially the first line about the terminology.
I'd just add that, while people shouldn't indeed «take attacks against them within the context of the game on a personal level», when someone does that it doesn't hurt to explain to them that it's not personal, and the context in which the attacks are being made. I don't say that we should continuously baby-sit each other and hold our hands, but sometimes saying "hey dude, I am not [i]really[/i] against you, it's just a game" takes very little effort, and it can help a bad player in maturing a better approach to CN.
If one really doesn't get it, it's of course fine to let them alone. [i]We too[/i] are here to have fun!

[hr]
[quote name='VladimirLenin' timestamp='1329898529' post='2925495']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.[/quote]
Your words are very true. The state of nature isn't immutable, anyway: if the culture of CN players changes, and we stop tolerating RL attacks, these will go away. As Kzoppistan said, social pressure can do a lot.

[hr]
[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1329898531' post='2925496']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.[/quote]
:D
I should really try that bourbon thing more. I am more a rum or brandy or cognac one when it comes to spirits, but I am not against trying other tastes. Do you have any brand/make you'd suggest? (Privately to avoid advertising, I guess.)

[hr]
[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]
[spoiler][quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1329827698' post='2925079'][list][*][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.[/list][/quote][/spoiler]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said dude

Edited by Kubla Khan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerdge, two of the strongest responses in this topic, one by [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109250&view=findpost&p=2925555]Inst[/url] and the other by [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109250&view=findpost&p=2927294]Quinoa[/url], you've completely wussed out by promising you'd respond to them later and then suspiciously skipped over them. Mind addressing them?

Edited by Leet Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the stance MK took with regards to the other during the alleged planned rolling of NoR by Fark, the latter is pretty incoherent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1331050797' post='2934628']Jerdge, two of the strongest responses in this topic, one by [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109250&view=findpost&p=2925555]Inst[/url] and the other by [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109250&view=findpost&p=2927294]Quinoa[/url], you've completely wussed out by promising you'd respond to them later and then suspiciously skipped over them. Mind addressing them?[/quote]
I apologize, I didn't really skipped over them: I would now be supposed to go on, starting from Instr's post, but I still have to find the time for it (if I remember it well, his comment deserves something more than one or two lines of reply).
The truth is, in the last days I have been playing CN mostly on my mobile while commuting - 5 to 10 minutes at a time - and I also have some things to try keep going at alliance level, thus I am struggling to find the time to do everything. I have more or less kept reading this thread and I will eventually answer to everything (should it become impossible for some reason I'll make a blog entry, I suppose).
Thanks for your reminder anyway, as you gave me the occasion to explain why my replies stopped; and again apologies for the way my management of my priorities impacted on my activity in this discussion: I am not ignoring anyone intentionally.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1331053343' post='2934637']Given the stance MK took with regards to the other during the alleged planned rolling of NoR by Fark, the latter is pretty incoherent.[/quote]
I take this occasion also to ask what does this comment of yours mean, Roq. "The other"? "The latter"?... :unsure: ... I am not following you.

Edited by jerdge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay: as I said it's more or less completely independent from my will. (We probably don't have crowds waiting for my comments with baited breath, do we?)


[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]
Intentions and form are important.
I will not attempt to "prove" that my attempt to find a common ground with people I disagree with is honest, and that I make every effort to respect everyone: that's very evident, to the point that you need some real bad faith to doubt it. I don't claim that my attitude [i]has[/i] to be well received, mind you, just that it's questionable to rejected it [i]as hypocrisy[/i].
You will not find gratuitous attacks in my posts on this subject, because I criticize behaviours, I don't try to "assassinate characters I don't like". Criticizing what people do and inviting them to improve their behaviour isn't disrespecting them. In fact it's the opposite, because it entails the conviction that they're capable to do so, and that communicating with them is possible and desirable.
That I obviously think that it's possible that I can teach them something in this field isn't disrespectful either, by itself, unless one has the very eccentric idea that trying to educate others (assuming that it's possible to avoid it, BTW) is insulting by default.

There's an aspect in your post that anyway makes me wonder. You seem to believe that I can't reconcile respect with disagreement and criticism, and that I could think that respecting the point of view of others would imply that I consider unacceptable [i]calling[/i] it wrong (simply because of the distress that disagreement might cause to them? For other reasons?)
I even wonder if you could be thinking that I could be convinced that it was disrespectful to [i]think[/i] that others can be wrong.
To break up these illusions I'll anyway shed some light on my fundamental convictions. While a greatly skeptical individual myself, and not really a pragmatic one, I am aware of the danger of thinking too much, i.e. of losing sight of what's necessary to "simply continue". I am not at all sure that [i]anything[/i] makes sense (this very post might be indicative, BTW), but I [i]know[/i] that I can't continue to function for long if I don't base my values on "something".
In other words: while sipping a glass of meditation wine I could be very happy of discussing the ultimate futility of values, "respect" included; when it's time to do something [i]for real[/i], however, I hang on to my values ("respect" included), and I treat anyone threatening them as any sensible individual would treat threats. Which is: to avert them with the civility that it's possible [i]and[/i] with the effort that it takes, at the best of my possibilities.
In other again, maybe harsher, words: if I can live with one's irreconcilable system I will do it and we will merrily discuss which is better, otherwise no intellectual respect will stop me from trying to convince that one that [i]his[/i] one is wrong, or to get him out of the way, as last resort. This doesn't actually happen often: just when people try to trample on me, and hey: I have every reason to respect others, but I don't have any reason to let others disrespect myself.



[quote name='Instr' timestamp='1329921332' post='2925555']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.[/quote]
First of all, and for clarity for people that didn't see that, the fact that that discussion took place on the MK forums was completely independent from my choice. As you know, I took part to the discussion, I didn't start it. That also means that it wasn't an "embassy to the MK", but just that it happened there.
I don't claim that this thread has nothing to do with what happened on the MK forums. I am not blind to the fact that the MK, as a community with a clearly identifiable leadership (I am [i]not[/i] here talking of the IC entity), can't be considered completely neutral towards what happens within their confines. I know that they pride themselves (not completely without reason, IMHO) with the almost absolute absence of limits of acceptability for what their members and supporters are "allowed" to post there; nonetheless, some limits must be enforced, and their leadership [i]is[/i] responsible for doing that (I don't think that many would disagree with this in principle, while of course everyone will have their opinion on [i]where[/i] that limit has to be set).
[i]However[/i], this thread is [i]not[/i] about the MK. As I said repeatedly, no alliance (or group of) can be "overlapped"/identified with the loose group that doesn't behave as well as it should. In the MK there are excellent and very respectable and respectful people, and there are many ill-behaved people in other places. Again: I am talking of personal responsibility of the players as RL individuals, and the problem - if there's one - can be solved at that level [i]only[/i]. Talking of [i]any[/i] alliance is misleading at the very least.
I thus completely reject and deem false your referencing the MK and "them" as an entity that has anything to do with this discussion.

It is true that a clash occurred on that board in "that thread", and that that clash involved me. At the other "side" there wasn't an alliance, though, but a group of players (a considerable share of which wasn't in the MK, and which didn't include a considerable share - I'd say the majority! - of the MK). Your "analysis" of the reasons that attempt to communicate failed for is anyway, I am sorry to say (and [i]I[/i] am sorry to say it), [i]completely ridiculous[/i].
Admittedly, my first post there was a wall of text - not only I am sadly known for these, but the thread was hundreds of posts long and the situation was complex: it wouldn't have been possible to exhaust my arguments in a few lines.
The majority of that post was anyway about the discussion of specific points of the case: my arguments might have been dumb or annoying, but they weren't about anyone else being immature and they weren't about social mores. A grand total of 130-ish words (on almost 2,000 that comprised that post) were about the mistakes that would have been committed and the dangers that the MK community would have been exposing itself to. The only reference to anything even remotely resembling morality was the premise that offending people for the sake of it or engaging in sadistic behaviours was unbecoming of humans.
I remain convinced that the real reason that communication failed for is that [i]the other side[/i] was not willing to consider my words for their value. The mob was out for blood and thought was unthinkable: that, I admit, I failed to anticipate (which on the other hand again shows that my attitude was of consideration - not that I think that I need to justify my actions, anyway).

One more thing. Although I don't want to derail this post too much, I won't anyway let pass your dishonest reconstruction of that failure. More in the spoiler.
[spoiler]Of the ~70 words you used, 55 are spent to accuse me of misbehaviour: I would have been unwilling, I would have treated, I would have had the (wrong) perception, I would have not allowed validity, I would have evangelized, etc. The only concession to what "the other side" would have been doing is the very passive "not giving heed".
I didn't give much importance to the insults then and I don't do it now, but I remind you that I just went there to have an open and civil talk with people I was disagreeing with - but to which I recognized the benefit of doubt, and from which I expected the capability of discuss the merits of the situation - i.e. I went there [i]with respect[/i]. I was met with a minority of actual replies to my arguments (some being your ones, IIRC), while most were just insults of various kinds: plain name calling, racist or homophobic remarks, usage of disabilities as insults and so on; there were a number of temporary bans (for the other readers: [i]I[/i] was temp banned) and a number of insulting edits to my forum display name (probably a collateral damage of IC government people not being fit for RL responsibilities?)
A "popular" argument would have been that I would have misused the moderation forums to campaign to become a moderator, which - [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=32897&view=findpost&p=873632"]coming from the MK government (and from Archon of all people)[/url] - was [i]beyond stupid[/i].
The most you can say about me being condescending is that I didn't bother to reply to insults: they weren't able to offend me and they weren't amusing either, they were just boring - why should I have wasted my time with them?
You can't anyway say with a straight face that I have been the one with the abusive behaviour in that discussion. I said that your reconstruction is dishonest and I stick with that accusation, adding that you were 100% aware of it when you posted it.[/spoiler]



[quote name='Instr' timestamp='1329921332' post='2925555'][the people on the MK forums] are not [barbarians]. 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.[/quote]
As said above, I didn't treat anyone as barbarians (unless ignoring insults qualifies as that): you have just been putting words into my mouth.
Nihilism is fine, BTW: I consider myself a nihilist too. Calling "nihilism" the claim that I should remain silent when someone tries to trample on me isn't much convincing, though, and not only because you're [i]at the same time[/i] protesting that I would be trying to trample on others' "rights" (to trample on me, I guess?)



[quote name='Instr' timestamp='1329921332' post='2925555']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.[/quote]
I doubt that alluding that there are Mods and rules is forbidden. My line is just another attempt [i]to help[/i], as at times people bring their crap on this board too, and it usually ends badly (for everyone involved, not just for them).

It's again dishonest of you to talk of EZI: I repeatedly advocated RL action - social pressure - as last resort to force irreducible offenders to either stop or leave, and I repeatedly excluded any in-game action from the scope of this thread. You obviously don't ignore that EZI is about exploiting the game to force players out of the game for IC reasons, which again leads me to think that you're [i]intentionally[/i] being [i]intellectually dishonest[/i].
That's really terrible of you, I'll have you know, and you should stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1331606320' post='2937420']
It's again dishonest of you to talk of EZI: I repeatedly advocated RL action - social pressure - as last resort to force irreducible offenders to either stop or leave, and I repeatedly excluded any in-game action from the scope of this thread. You obviously don't ignore that EZI is about exploiting the game to force players out of the game for IC reasons, which again leads me to think that you're [i]intentionally[/i] being [i]intellectually dishonest[/i].
That's really terrible of you, I'll have you know, and you should stop it.
[/quote]

It's been patently clear who you've been targeting with this topic, so to say there aren't in game actions being suggested by it is laughable at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1331648372' post='2937597']It's been patently clear who you've been targeting with this topic, so to say there aren't in game actions being suggested by it is laughable at best.[/quote]
I don't know how you will reconcile that theory of yours with the N times I expressly and unambiguously stated that I am not talking of in-game issues, that in-game actions are on a completely different plane of existence and that they can't thus be of any use for this matter (and that they're in fact harmful for this cause).
But, since you said that it's "patently clear", I guess that you think that you can easily demonstrate your theory in no time. Or document it. Or actually explain it, for a start.

I'll wait.



[size=1][[b]edit:[/b]grammar][/size]

Edited by jerdge

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...