Petition: For the Sake of Fun

[notyoueither]

I read them as whining about having your diplomatic shorts handed to you, but maybe that's just me.

[Hot_Enamel]

Originally posted by 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.

Yay !!! Back to topic !!!!

The GoW never put ourself on the pedistal of playing with honour, therefore we do not need to defend ourselves. GS include honour as "not breaking any deals". I am simply saying that it is a pity that GS does not believe it should read as "not breaking the spirit of a deal".


Some of your team have posted that your actions were about getting even with GoW for breaking deals...or.. GoW is willing to search for loopholes, so GS should be allowed to do it.

That's a fine reason, and one that I can accept.
You are opportunistic and will do what's in your teams best interest. Just like the rest of us.

But arguing that you did not breaking our NAP is what I have issue with.

[Hot_Enamel]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I read them as whining about having your diplomatic shorts handed to you, but maybe that's just me.

Thats the spirit

:

[notyoueither]

What's your issue?

Where did it say we would not take cities?

Where did it say that we would allow you access to our lands?

Huh? Where?

To be honest, I really don't care about the whining of a civ who has never managed to keep a deal with us. It is pretty obvious that such a civ would not be an authority on such matters. However, as long as you want to keep come a barkin', I'll keep pointing at your fleas.

[Master Zen]

/me scratches his back...

hmm... darn fleas... is this contagion part of GS's military strategy, if so, I'm surrendering already...

[Aeson]

MZ,

You missed the point of the analogy completely. I wasn't comparing calling names to what you were doing. I was making a comparison of a situation where the 'targets' feelings were disregarded after they had been made known.

You've made it clear that you don't feel that insulting a team is insulting it's members. Even when someone on a team you insult feels insulted and makes that known, you just further the damage by telling them their feelings are wrong, that their approach to the game is wrong. Like we are all here to play your game... Each of us has the right to approach and view the game in the manner we want.

If you really don't want to come off as insulting, then actually listen to the people who are offended by your statements and take their feelings into account before making more statements. You can't just assume everyone is (or should be) affected by your statements the way you would, especially when they've made it clear that they aren't affected the way you would be.

Simply put (and avoiding analogy), when you say GS has no honor, and GS members get upset about it and make it known to you, continuing to say GS has no honor isn't in good humor even if it's fun for you. Even if you feel it's true. If you want to keep saying it, it's your perogative, but don't try to pretend you're being nice and playful when you're knowingly provoking people.

Unless that type of intellectual dishonesty is what you're shooting for.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by 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.

Granted, but there's a layer you're missing. The agreement GS made to play honorably was an agreement among players, not an agreement among characters (or at least that's how I see it). Thus, the real-world me has a commitment for the in-game me to abide by certain standards of honesty. If the in-game me willfully violates those standards, the real-world me has violated his obligations to hold the in-game me to those standards.

Interestingly, the same could work in the opposite direction. Suppose a member of the al-Sahif team was scrupulously honest in the game. In effect, the player would be violating his implicit agreement in joining the team to be routinely dishonest.

It's not the in-game behavior per se that's the issue. To the best of my knowledge, Vox never had a commitment not to lie to other teams and stab them in the back, so saying that the Voxians lied and stabbed us in the back has nothing to do with the honor of the members of the Vox team in real life. Rather, it's the tie between in-game behavior and the real-life agreement among the team members that guides that behavior that makes Gathering Storm something of a special case.

[Master Zen]

I hereby retire from instigating chaos

[Hot_Enamel]

Me too .. this is my last post

R.I.P. Trash threading

[Shiber]

Cool.
Now will you both sign my petition?
(I'm hopeless ain't I?)

[Shiber]

P.S. Don't you wish that avatars were back so we could have... AVATAR WARS!!!

[Tiberius]

Shouldn't we have avatars, first?

Edit: ahh, I didn't read your post careful enough . Yes, obviously I wish we had our avatars back.

[vulture]

I want my avatar back - I only just got enough posts to get a custom av about two days before they disappeared.

I think I might join the 'close the off topic forum' campaign

[Darekill]

Hoe many posts do you need to get an avatar?
Far to many i spose...

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Darekill
Hoe many posts do you need to get an avatar?
Far to many i spose...

500

So, maybe by the time the avatars come back you will make it.
(one can dream)