Who are you? No, dude, really, who are you?

[Bob Janova]

I'd like to claim my moral crusader points, please.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Qaianna' timestamp='1282018884' post='2418732']
X = 0, Y = 0: Average non-OWF player. Politics? What's that?
[/quote]

I'd disagree with you on this one, as I consider myself to be 0,0. This does not mean that I do not exhibit any of these qualities or do not involve myself - it's that I tend to act in any direction an equal amount.

[KingBilly1]

[img]http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/9480/chartcopy.jpg[/img]

[Goldie]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1282064548' post='2419821']
I'd like to claim my moral crusader points, please.
[/quote]

Bob is probably the only person who could actually claim to be a 9,9 or above IMO.

[LJ Scott]

I'm off that graph at about: y +12, x 0

[Lukapaka]

This is awesome!!!! Props to OP.

[Remaliat]

I'm closest probably to y+7 x-4

I am quite happy with my position in that as well, although I wouldn't mind getting in touch with my "inner sith"

[Great Lord Moth]

+8/+8

[Lennox]

[img]http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n44/phily310/CyberNations/NSOChart.jpg[/img]

This is NSO's position

[TehChron]

[quote name='Lennox' timestamp='1282136932' post='2421539']
[img]http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n44/phily310/CyberNations/NSOChart.jpg[/img]

This is NSO's position
[/quote]
I am in complete agreement with the above. We really are.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Chron

[sammykhalifa]

I'd say I was "lols," but nobody besides me seems to think I'm very funny.

[Sephiroth]

I can be either srs business or lols depending on the situation and who I'm dealing with, the same goes for Altruistic and Malevolent. I tend to be Altruistic when dealing with friends and allies, but can turn malevolent when dealing with people who have wronged me or a friend/ally of mine.

When I was King of FCC and before that when in gov, I think I was mostly Altruistic and Srs Business leaning. After I left FCC I might of become a little more malevolent when dealing with some people than before and probably done more stuff for the lols as well, but I think it changes depending on my state of mind at the moment and usually I'm pretty balanced on not going to far in one direction.

[Hymenbreach]

[IMG]http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j238/Latics/postion.jpg[/IMG]

I kinda peaked with the lulz with the name choice.

In RL I am, according to the Local Archeology and Talking about Stuff a Lot Club, considered a bit of a card.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Hymenbreach

[Moridin]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1281919548' post='2417221']
Not a bad idea, but "altruistic" is not the opposite of malevolent (and is a false concept to begin with but that's beside the point.)

The word you were looking for would be 'benevolent'.
[/quote]

A better x-axis would be idealistic versus pragmatic. Everyone always believes they are right - or at least not wrong - so classifying oneself as 'malevolent' is ridiculous. Most of the people placing themselves on this chart (at least those doing it seriously) put themselves on the altruistic side, whereas with idealism versus pragmatism there might be a more even split.

For what it's worth, I'd place myself at (5, 6). I certainly used to be much further right a few years ago.

[img]http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a110/Numenorean5/axes.png[/img]

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='Moridin' timestamp='1282203349' post='2422904']
A better x-axis would be idealistic versus pragmatic. Everyone always believes they are right - or at least not wrong - so classifying oneself as 'malevolent' is ridiculous. Most of the people placing themselves on this chart (at least those doing it seriously) put themselves on the altruistic side, whereas with idealism versus pragmatism there might be a more even split.

For what it's worth, I'd place myself at (5, 6). I certainly used to be much further right a few years ago.

[img]http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a110/Numenorean5/axes.png[/img]
[/quote]


There've been some good suggestions I've read so far that I'm going to factor into the 2.0 graph. But this isn't one of them.

Lol, ok, I kid, I kid. Your response does make a certain sense, however, one thing that applies equally to either set of x labels (the one you proposed and the one current) is the lack of accuracy in one's ability to self-disclose. It's becoming an emerging point in studies in consciousness awareness that most people do not have the capacity to accurately gauge their own actions, likes, or even motivations. Mostly because a large portion of why we do what we do lies buried under the impenetrable hood of physiology and doesn't make itself known to the upper reaches of the cognitive process.

An example I recently read about: beards. In a survey they polled people concerning what they thought about beards (though this was not disclosed as the actual question, but rather this data emerged in a larger study gathered in questioners/interviews about fashion). At the time of the study a beard was considered very low in the ranking of desirable fashion accessories. Many would point-blank say "I don't find a man with a beard attractive" or some such.

However, when then given a large collection of photos of people and asked to rank them and describe their immediate opinions of them, the beard's popularity became evident. Often those who wore a beard were described as being more aggressive, masculine, virile, trusting, likable, ect.

The point, people think they prefer one thing and say so due to sociological conditioning, but actually are driven by something else, often unbeknownst to themselves.

So in some sense, you are right, due to the negative and positive connotations of the words "malevolent" and "altruistic" more people would disclose themselves as being nice, whether or not that is really the case. ([i]As you pointed out, most people pursue their actions with the goal in mind of what best benefits themselves at least cost. Sometimes eliminating an enemy completely, rather than showing clemency, fulfills that criteria regardless of the damage done to the other party. It also cannot be denied that some people hurt others simply for their own amusement, regardless of whether they think they are justified or not, and that is what the pole refers to.[/i]) But consider by that same token, how people might describe themselves as idealistic or pragmatic. Rather than based in truth, people report what they think they are, or at least how they want to be seen. Even for one to say that they are idealistic (as opposed to describing someone else as) means that they already understand the current situation and how that is juxtaposed against their envisioned 'ideal' situation and the distance gap between the two, largely demonstrating that they are, if fact, pragmatic enough to make such a complex judgment call.

So if one is going for accuracy, neither of the x labels are particularly well suited, so instead I went for flavor, letting people pick how they want to be seen (good vs. evil), rather than being burdened by reality. Though your "pragmatic/idealism" does have a certain appeal to it, owing to a perceivably less biased set.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Kzoppistan