Petition: For the Sake of Fun

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Theseus
Or what if GS decides to respond to all derogatory posts in 733t language?

oh no... n0t 733t w4rZ!!!! n00000!!!!!!!!

[Beta]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I understand and appreciate this, MZ. However, I know you from elsewhere, and I am perhaps used to the jostle of more rambuncious fora than some of the forums on Poly.

Nevertheless, some of the comments from GoW could not have elicited the response you got better than if you tried to. That is just the nature of some of the individuals.

I wonder what would happen if we issued a manifesto which called into question the abilities in combat of the entire team of GoW, or slagged the civ building style of Lego. I would imagine there would be a very... ermmm... warm response to it. There should be anyway, because it would be deliberately expounding a falsehood about a matter close to the hearts of the targets.

People who do such things are known as trolls. It is considered funny sometimes that people respond to trolls the way they do. It can be even funnier when the troll expresses disbelief at his or her success with the hook. But to suggest that the results of trolling are the fault of the trolled, is to put the human behaviour cart before the emotional horse, is it not?

nye, I think this is a bit of a stretch. The manifesto was no different than a Vox Public Announcement (just not as well written ). Put it into perspective and game on.

ps - MZ - it was actually better than most of the stuff I wrote.

pps - nye - I would be happy to write a manifesto slagging GOW's war prowess. We at Vox saw little evidence of it.

[Hot_Enamel]

MZ is right

NYE is wrong



RP has already questioned the abilities in combat of the entire team of GoW. No-one in GoW took offense. It was hilarious.
As was their attempt to claim a MPP was a NAP
As is GS's claim they "did not interfere with our war against RP"

[Hot_Enamel]

Originally posted by Beta


nye, I think this is a bit of a stretch. The manifesto was no different than a Vox Public Announcement (just not as well written ). Put it into perspective and game on.

ps - MZ - it was actually better than most of the stuff I wrote.

pps - nye - I would be happy to write a manifesto slagging GOW's war prowess. We at Vox saw little evidence of it.

Neither did GoW

[Master Zen]

Hardly, your stuff was brilliant to say the least Beta

Thing is that the intent was different. Obviously if you start a war, you'll be seen as the agressor and will try and announce things in a more comical light (like we did against RP in the "Glory of News" thread).

However, with GS our team was not really in the mood for something even remotely funny, but just state the facts clearly which is what the intention of the thread was. That it degenerated into a flame-fest was of course the result of defining who broke the NAP, whether or not GS's honor code was broken or not, etc. etc. etc.

GoW has received it's share of sarcastic remarks over it's war history, and in fact we've laughed at it with you all instead of countering it.

[notyoueither]

Yes, I suppose when it's the truth all you can do is laugh along.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Yes, I suppose when it's the truth all you can do is laugh along.

Joke:

What does GoW's war prowess, GS's honor code and Superman have in common?

Spoiler:

neither of them exist!

[notyoueither]

Once again, the blind are critiquing colours.

[Panzer32]

List of people who does not behave as Master Zen does
-notyoueither
-Theseus
-Rodrigo the lizzard

updated.

If anyone would like to comment about GS in this or any other PTWDG thread concerning the war, please replace "GS/Gathering Storm" with "GS/Gathering Storm not including notyoueither or Theseus".

I feel this is a fair solution, and if anybody would like to be added to that list please contact me.

Of course the lizzard needs some mention too; although I don't think he is involved in PTWDG I. Although in PTWDG II we could have Eddie Izzard without the lizzard; ie Eddie not including the L.

[Aeson]

MZ,

I don't really care what you think about me or GS. I do care about the general attitudes in this game for the teams and members towards each other. You play your role in that, but it's just as much the rest of us that count too. That's what I posted about. You replied to my statement, and now I'm arguing against your logic as I think it's full of holes. This discussion between us has no personal emotion involved on my part as it basically boils down to semantics and logic.

You say that a statement against a community doesn't mean you are making the same statement against those individuals that make up the community, but it does.

Your example was citing enties derived from communities that are very large and diverse, with many millions of members comprising it. Most of whom anyone making such a statement never would have had any interaction with.

The teams here are much smaller groups than that, and each individual member comprises a large and important part of the team. In the most extreme case, consider a team that was made up of just one member. Any statement directed at the team as a whole would be directly applicable to the sole member.

Also, you are using analogy that doesn't fit with all your statements. You are using "their", "you", "yours" to direct some of your remarks, which doesn't fit with the independant entity (ie. "it") you use in your analogy. When using those identifiers, you are commenting on the members of the entity, not the entity itself. Even using the proper terms though, it is a rather dubious distinction to try to make (entity vs individuals that it consists of) in regards to such small groups.

I'm sorry to see some of you take this so seriously. It really isn't.

If it's serious to the person, and they make that known, and you go and make the same statement again, you are addressing them serious manner. If I were to call you a name in good humor and you don't like it, and I realized you don't like it, and then I call you the name again, it isn't in good humor anymore regardless of how fun it is for me.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Master Zen

I'm sorry to see some of you take this so seriously. It really isn't. Camaraderie goes waaay beyond feeling offended by things said over a silly game on decisions taken as a team, not as individuals. Until you realize that, I'm afraid every remark no matter how civilized it is, will do wonders to hurt your egos when the intent was never that.

Note: I am writing this as Nathan Barclay, resident of the real world. Please, please do not respond with trash talk as if this message were just part of the game.

Early in our history, Gathering Storm made an agreement among ourselves to play honorably; an agreement not to lie and not to break deals. Because that was an agreement among the members of our own team, I view that commitment as a commitment in real life, not merely as a mask worn while playing the game. Thus, whether you realize it or not, attacks you make against Gathering Storm's honor (unless directed at specific choices or actions that I did not agree to) are also implicitly attacks against my own personal honor in real life.

Depending on one's perspective, a case can be made that we rationalized ourselves into believing that a hostile act was not really a hostile act. But that's the most we can legitimately be considered guilty of - the most I, the real-life person who contributed to GS's decision, can legitimately be considered guilty of. Any logic that attempts to argue that Gathering Storm's honor is worthless due to our handling of the NAP argues equally that my own real-world honor is worthless since I accepted the strategy as being within the bounds of our commitment to play honorably. There is simply not enough distinction between my in-game persona's commitment to honesty and my real-world commitment to honesty (both of which are strong but also occasionally vulnerable to rationalizations) for it to be possible to attack the former without implicitly attacking the latter. Nor can you attack Gathering Storm's honor without implicitly attacking my own when the decisions you attack are ones I approved of.

I seriously doubt that you thought through these chains of logic in making your accusations. But the fact that you did not recognize the chains does not alter the fact that I do see them and can follow them to their logical conclusion. If Gathering Storm is without honor than I, personally, am without honor. Logic does not allow any other possibility.

If you want to step out of character for a moment, state your real-world position (and perhaps even debate it), and then go back to making stronger accusations as a form of trash talking, I have no problem with that. But when you present arguments that implicitly (albeit, I presume accidentally) portray my real-world honor as worthless and deliberately refuse to accept my counter-arguments as valid because your in-game persona won't allow it, how am I supposed to know when I've convinced the real person behind that perrsona that I was making a sincere effort to stay within (if only barely within) the bounds of our agreement?

Nathan

[Master Zen]

@ Nathan:

I'll answer as Rodrigo Aguilera, resident of the real world and in no-way related to Christina (thank god).

I think our point of view regarding this game is vastly different. I understand that game committments might appear to reflect the real life committments of people but not necessarily so IMO. For example, I might be a raging warmonger in this game, yet a total peacenik in RL and would cringe at doing in RL things I do in Civ if I were ever in command of a nation or an army. Thus, our "game personas" don't necessarily have to reflect our RL actions and our honor. I don't see why a game decision which the GS made reflects in any way the actions of you people as individuals since ultimately this is just a game.

Why do we play this game? Simple, because it is fun. And why is it fun? Because we get to do things that we would perhaps like to do in RL if we had the chance and if theree weren't consequences of our actions. Does a person who played Double Dragon leave the arcade to beat up people on the way back home? Nope. Does someone who play Doom or Quake buy an assualt rifle and go on a killing rampage? Nope. Does someone who breaks a treaty or backstabbs another in a Civ demo game or PBEM go and backstab his friends and family at home? I sure hope not.

So that's my point, no matter what happens here, I don't see why it should affect people's perceptions of others as people.

[notyoueither]

Well, the debate has ranged far from the real issue, hasn't it?

Did GS violate a deal? I would say absolutely not. We acquired land through legitimate in game means. Diplomacy.

We had an NAP with GoW. No part of that NAP required us to not acquire land, and no part of that NAP was an ROP for GoW to trapes across that land at their whim. The fact is that GoW violated the NAP when they advanced into our territory, and they shredded it when they attacked us.

All the random mutterings of all the shadey deal breakers in this, PTW game, world will not change facts. GoW has not shown an inkling of an understanding of what honour is about, and any of us who debate them on the topic are simply playing their game.

[Master Zen]

@ Aeson

The error of calling "you" "they" "them" instead of "its" is an error everyone makes constanly, especially when talking about touchy subjects like religion and politics. Yet we still do it regardless of the fact that it is gramatically incorrect.

"The French sabotaged the UN". Was it all the French? "The British are the US's lackeys". Do all Britons share this point of view?

Are all of Sunshine hippies? Are all of MAST liers? Am I a true latin lover (yes ) Can we judge people because of the choice of team they chose in that case? I don't think so.

As for calling names, I have not insulted anyone directly and I dare anyone to quote me if I did. I do not respond to GF's or H_E's comments only my own.

[Hot_Enamel]

A personal note to Nathan,

I agree with MZ...we must separate our game face with our real life.

If you are taking my critisicm of your teams game strategy, as a personal attack on your real life persona, then you are reading WAY too much into the posts.

Please read them for what they are...critisicms of a game strategy.