PDA

View Full Version : A Comedy of Species


Sildae
03-14-2005, 06:46 PM
I'll start this off with Gryffon, I suppose
Am I the only one rather disgusted by everybody making up lots of additional mythology that has no place within Graal to make their character something special?

Evil_Lord_Sparda
03-14-2005, 07:05 PM
Am I the only one rather disgusted by everybody making up lots of additional mythology that has no place within Graal to make their character something special?

Yup.

Kaimetsu
03-14-2005, 07:26 PM
Am I the only one rather disgusted by everybody making up lots of additional mythology that has no place within Graal to make their character something special?

I am proof that you are not.

GryffonDurime
03-15-2005, 12:04 AM
Am I the only one rather disgusted by everybody making up lots of additional mythology that has no place within Graal to make their character something special?

Because Graal has such rich and vivid histories to draw from for a character!

Like the...no...well, how bout the...no, I don't suppose there's that either.

Gryffon's not "special". He lived in a monestary for two hundred years and has a personal "totem" animal, I suppose is what you'd call it.

Kaimetsu
03-15-2005, 12:29 AM
Gryffon's not "special"

He's a member of a race that doesn't appear to exist. Seems pretty special to me.

GryffonDurime
03-15-2005, 12:39 AM
He's a member of a race that doesn't appear to exist. Seems pretty special to me.

As opposed to Shawn, the fox-thingy? Why should we be limited to just Elf, Zormite, Dwarf, or Human? How did these races come to be in the first place?

People made them up.

Kaimetsu
03-15-2005, 03:25 AM
As opposed to Shawn, the fox-thingy?

I did not say that you were the only one.

Why should we be limited to just Elf, Zormite, Dwarf, or Human?

Because those are the only creatures that have any presence in the world.

Why do you need your character to be a winged vultureperson? The most believable backstory is the one with greatest parsimony.

GryffonDurime
03-15-2005, 03:44 AM
I did not say that you were the only one.



Because those are the only creatures that have any presence in the world.

Why do you need your character to be a winged vultureperson? The most believable backstory is the one with greatest parsimony.

And why do they HAVE a presence? Because people MADE them have presence. Not that it matters. This is neither here nor there. This is a forum for official FOREST business in an official FOREST forum. If you wish to continue this debate, please do so in the general Kingdoms forum.

Kaimetsu
03-15-2005, 03:56 AM
And why do they HAVE a presence? Because people MADE them have presence

Is that your goal with the bird people? Seems unlikely!

Again: Why does he need to be a member of some newly invented species? Does it allow anything that wouldn't otherwise have been possible? Does it make sense that he's the only one of his kind in the world? Is it even feasible that his race could've evolved from vultures? Your character is not believable, and that's a pretty fatal flaw when roleplaying.

This is a forum for official FOREST business in an official FOREST forum. If you wish to continue this debate, please do so in the general Kingdoms forum.

I'm hardly off topic. If we're asking people to propose backstories then it makes sense to have some discussion on what kinds are acceptable. Still, if you wish to move it to that forum then I guess I will comply. Just make the thread and I'll switch over.

GryffonDurime
03-15-2005, 04:56 AM
Is that your goal with the bird people? Seems unlikely!

Again: Why does he need to be a member of some newly invented species? Does it allow anything that wouldn't otherwise have been possible? Does it make sense that he's the only one of his kind in the world? Is it even feasible that his race could've evolved from vultures? Your character is not believable, and that's a pretty fatal flaw when roleplaying.



I'm hardly off topic. If we're asking people to propose backstories then it makes sense to have some discussion on what kinds are acceptable. Still, if you wish to move it to that forum then I guess I will comply. Just make the thread and I'll switch over.

By that same logic, why be anything other than human? Does being an Elf give me any more options? Only culturally, I suppose. Does being a Daveon give me any new options? Again, it allows me to make a character from a cultural perspective. Being a Daveon allowed me to juxtapose Gryffon's internal hatred of himself with his quest for serenity with Mytriism. THAT is why I created the Daveons.

As for their origin, they are vulture-like in appearance and tendancies, but I don't think I put that they were descended from vultures in so many words. A panda may look like a bear, but they're certainly not closely related enough that you'd call it a bear.

Kaimetsu
03-15-2005, 06:57 AM
By that same logic, why be anything other than human?

Because the other established races have certain traits that define a character - traits that are universally recognised. You don't need to explain your character's origins and traditions and tendencies every time you introduce him.

Again and again: Believability is closely linked to parsimony! Do you intend to let everybody invent their own species? To the point where there are no two members of the same race?

As for their origin, they are vulture-like in appearance and tendancies, but I don't think I put that they were descended from vultures in so many words

Well, not since you edited your post.

GryffonDurime
03-16-2005, 01:42 AM
Because the other established races have certain traits that define a character - traits that are universally recognised. You don't need to explain your character's origins and traditions and tendencies every time you introduce him.

Again and again: Believability is closely linked to parsimony! Do you intend to let everybody invent their own species? To the point where there are no two members of the same race?



Well, not since you edited your post.

I edited it because you were right. It was an oversight, thank you. I meant only to ELUDE to the relationship.

Race is just one thing a character has to explain. Skills, ability, history. All of that is unique. All of it has to be EXPLAINED in character. My history just happens to include a unique race. What of it? And you see Daveons are unbeleivable: Games are a suspension of reality. I find desert-dwelling carrion-eaters about as likely as giant amphibious fish people or immortal Vulcans of the forest.

Inspiration
03-16-2005, 02:07 AM
I think the point here is though, while there is nothing wrong with creativity, does your race really have any place at all on Graal?

If you were playing a Star Trek RPG, could you make your character into a Jedi Knight? Certainly not, as it would be completely out of place.

There is, in theory, nothing WRONG with your character, however to bring it into a world that already has defined races, is breaking basic rules of role playing.

GryffonDurime
03-16-2005, 02:25 AM
I think the point here is though, while there is nothing wrong with creativity, does your race really have any place at all on Graal?

If you were playing a Star Trek RPG, could you make your character into a Jedi Knight? Certainly not, as it would be completely out of place.

There is, in theory, nothing WRONG with your character, however to bring it into a world that already has defined races, is breaking basic rules of role playing.

Au contrare. Gryffon the Daveon first arrived on 2k1. I was accepted there, so it became a Graalian race by virtue of me playing it. 2K1 and 2K2 are interconnected. Bingo bango, connection. Regardlessly, it's really a frikkin moot point. Gryffon's not even a Daveon anymore, since he had a wee bit o' the sap.


Forest introduced Goblins for the first time to Graal's RP, because that's what a player wanted. Thusly, I say to ye, big whoop. Players define RP.

Kaimetsu
03-16-2005, 02:26 AM
You edited my post? For what purpose?

Race is just one thing a character has to explain. Skills, ability, history. All of that is unique. All of it has to be EXPLAINED in character

No, not really. Most of it is inevitably revealed as time goes by, as in any good roleplaying. If your bird race has any presence in the world then most characters should already know a little about their tendencies. But they don't, because you just made them up. Either you leave them with a strange gap in their knowledge or you take time to explain. Both approaches are sub-optimal.

My history just happens to include a unique race

Ah, so it is intentionally unique? How would you feel if others started using it, too?

And you see Daveons are unbeleivable: Games are a suspension of reality

I said unbelievable, not unrealistic. There is rather a large difference.

You didn't answer my question. Would you see anything wrong with a RPing environment where everybody has invented their own race for their character?

GryffonDurime
03-16-2005, 04:19 AM
You edited my post? For what purpose?



No, not really. Most of it is inevitably revealed as time goes by, as in any good roleplaying. If your bird race has any presence in the world then most characters should already know a little about their tendencies. But they don't, because you just made them up. Either you leave them with a strange gap in their knowledge or you take time to explain. Both approaches are sub-optimal.



Ah, so it is intentionally unique? How would you feel if others started using it, too?



I said unbelievable, not unrealistic. There is rather a large difference.

You didn't answer my question. Would you see anything wrong with a RPing environment where everybody has invented their own race for their character?

In order: A misclick, I thought I clicked "quote" when it was really edit.

If someone DOSENT know what a Zormite is, the same can be said.

It was a charecteristic I USED to make him unique, yes. I don't care if there are other Daveons. Feel free, anyone.

Realism begits believability

Not particularly. It sounds like a very interesting setting. Very unique, if nothing else.

Kaimetsu
03-16-2005, 04:27 AM
If someone DOSENT know what a Zormite is, the same can be said

And if somebody doesn't know English then he can't interact with my character. Does that somehow justify inventing my own language and expecting people to learn it?

It's reasonable to expect that a given roleplayer will know what a Zormite is. Furthermore, if you teach them, they can go ahead and use that knowledge elsewhere.

It was a charecteristic I USED to make him unique, yes

Why did you need to make him unique? And didn't you earlier say that he's not special? Within the context, the two words seem synonymous.

Realism begits believability

Of course. But that's utterly irrelevant. Something doesn't need to be realistic in order to be believable. And my criticisms of your character are unrelated to how realistic he is.

Not particularly. It sounds like a very interesting setting

It's an unregulated setting. If you had a little more experience with RPing, you might realise how that's a bad thing.

GryffonDurime
03-16-2005, 06:06 AM
And if somebody doesn't know English then he can't interact with my character. Does that somehow justify inventing my own language and expecting people to learn it?

It's reasonable to expect that a given roleplayer will know what a Zormite is. Furthermore, if you teach them, they can go ahead and use that knowledge elsewhere.



Why did you need to make him unique? And didn't you earlier say that he's not special? Within the context, the two words seem synonymous.



Of course. But that's utterly irrelevant. Something doesn't need to be realistic in order to be believable. And my criticisms of your character are unrelated to how realistic he is.



It's an unregulated setting. If you had a little more experience with RPing, you might realise how that's a bad thing.

Because I've got such horrible experience. Such horrible, horrible experience. Tell me, Kaimetsu, when was the last time you roleplayed? When was the last time YOU interacted with the roleplaying community, specifically on Graal Kingdoms. WAIT. I forsee a comeback! "You don't have to DO something to UNDERSTAND something." I disagree. When it comes to how a community you really have no part of runs itself, your say is equivalent to that crazy old lady that lives in apartment 9B with those cats and that lintball she calls 'fluffy'.

Graal RPing isn't about stringent rules. If there's one thing I loved about 2K1, and the early days of 2k2, it's that the enviornment was freeform. The RP was regulated independantly by the kings, and so what people did (when they accepted it) became part of Graal.

Being unique dosen't make you special. It makes you different, not more or less important.

Inspiration
03-16-2005, 06:44 AM
You're failing to see a very basic fact here.

The purpose of having regulations in a role playing community is so that role playing can actually take place. If everyone comes to a role playing session with an elaborate backstory, a custom race, and a custom class, so much time would be spent on explainations, no actual roleplaying would take place. Imagine if 10 role players got together, and each had a backstory that required 10 minutes of explaination.

Then, every time a situation comes up which would require abilities from that race to be brought into play, MORE time would be used on explainations.

So now imagine a Kingdom on Graal with 20 members in it, each having their own custom race. It would be chaotic.

My point is, if you're allowed to make a custom race, what is stopping everyone else? If everyone has a custom race, the whole RPing community would be too chaotic to work.

I don't understand how you don't see this logic.

Kaimetsu
03-16-2005, 08:08 AM
Because I've got such horrible experience. Such horrible, horrible experience. Tell me, Kaimetsu, when was the last time you roleplayed?

Within GK? Must be a couple of years at least.

WAIT. I forsee a comeback! "You don't have to DO something to UNDERSTAND something." I disagree

Well, that is not quite what I would say. Rather, I would state that experience doesn't always lead to knowledge or skill - it depends on the person. Telling me that you have lots of experience doesn't mean much if you never learned from it.

Anyway, I don't think you have any basis to say that you have more experience with it than I. My comment was not specific to GK - I talked about your experience as a whole.

When it comes to how a community you really have no part of runs itself[...]

What a tiresome defense. You really intend to argue that none of my knowledge is transferable? That we can break roleplaying down into arbitrary divisions just so that we can exclude others and claim superiority?

"You never roleplay on Thursdays! You know nothing about roleplaying on Thursdays!!"

Graal RPing isn't about stringent rules. If there's one thing I loved about 2K1, and the early days of 2k2, it's that the enviornment was freeform

Aye, because it allowed you to build your unrealistic, cohesion-breaking characters. If roleplay is not regulated then all the clueless children will just engage in constant games of oneupmanship. "My character is specialer than yours! He was born in the FIRES OF HELL". "YEAH? Well MY character is the LORD OF HELL, HA". "OH NO YOU DON'T. MY CHARACTER IS GOD"

Being unique dosen't make you special

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=special

Sildae
03-16-2005, 07:09 PM
If someone DOSENT know what a Zormite is, the same can be said.
Zormites were created multiple years ago by collective discussion and agreement and have since become an integral part of Graal, roleplayed by dozens of players and featuring many structures throughout Graal Kingdoms and Graal2001.
If someone does not know what a zormite is, they are most likely new to Graal and will learn soon.

Your race was created because you wanted to be more special than others. It is not supported, to my knowledge, by anything but your character background. It is not featured anywhere.

Please do not get me wrong, I am all for creativity and expanding the roleplay, but imagine what roleplaying would be like if everybody had their own race that only they were a member of. I think it is a far more interesting challenge to create your character to fit within the existing framework of Graal, and then making it unique through its attitude and your style of playing.

If roleplay is not regulated then all the clueless children will just engage in constant games of oneupmanship.
That is why you are not supposed to roleplay with clueless children.

Kaimetsu
03-16-2005, 07:22 PM
That is why you are not supposed to roleplay with clueless children.

In GK, you don't have much of a choice. You can just hope that the kingdom leaders and suchlike will set a good example.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening.

zell12
03-16-2005, 09:08 PM
You both are arguing like women. Who cares eh...

Kaimetsu
03-16-2005, 09:15 PM
You both are arguing like women

How do women typically argue?

GoZelda
03-16-2005, 09:26 PM
How do women typically argue?
For as far as I know, like this:
Woman: "why do boys always behave so much different than girls lol?"
Me: "Because they are different."

Kaimetsu
03-16-2005, 09:44 PM
For as far as I know, like this:
Woman: "why do boys always behave so much different than girls lol?"

Well, I am quite sure that I am not doing that.

GoZelda
03-16-2005, 09:46 PM
Well, I am quite sure that I am not doing that.
I am not - because I haven't read the thread.

zell12
03-16-2005, 09:48 PM
Just stop bickering about something so stupid. Gryffon is a vulture type thingey, and you don't think he should be able to make a character other then a elf, human, dwarf or something else. Who cares man?

Kaimetsu
03-16-2005, 09:50 PM
Just stop bickering about something so stupid

Do you ever get tired of issuing such impotent commands?

Who cares man?

Look through the thread. You'll find your answer.

zell12
03-16-2005, 10:02 PM
I don't get tired of of telling women to stop arguing, no.

I looked through the thread, seems only you care.

Kaimetsu
03-16-2005, 10:09 PM
I don't get tired of of telling women to stop arguing, no

Well, that is okay. I don't get tired of watching you do your self-righteous brat thing.

I looked through the thread, seems only you care.

How sad. They never taught you to count.

Waltz5
03-16-2005, 10:50 PM
I really don't see a problem with it because this is his history... I don't see Gryffon going on Graal shouting, "I'm a vulture like creature who got his wings cut off! You can't touch me!" Hey atleast Gryff is trying here... which isn't the case on GK nowadays.

Kaimetsu
03-16-2005, 11:19 PM
I really don't see a problem with it because this is his history...

Well, that is not in dispute. But it also defines the history of the world, which has to be shared.

GryffonDurime
03-16-2005, 11:39 PM
Je suis fatigue.

This is idiotic. The reality is, Graal Kingdoms has no central RP Enforcement besides the Kings. Big whoop, my character is special by an academic definition. Let's all JUMP DOWN EACH OTHERS THROATS OVER SEMANTICS.

I don't apply my race to my roleplaying accept with those who already know it. To most, I simply say that I'm a very old half-elf, which is technically true. But when I roleplay with Gryffon's close friends, such as Shawn or Padren, I often talk about my brother, other Daveons, and Obsydyon. Wow, my character is a FOREIGNER. All it does is add depth, which I only use by dolling out information to friends one spoonful at a time.

This technique seems VERY believable, realistic, and up to par. Does being a Daveon give me an advantage over other characters? No, Daveons eat dead things raw and have immortality without immortal youth. Sounds like a less powerful elf that eats sushi, to me.

I see no problem with it as long as it's balanced.

Inspiration
03-16-2005, 11:52 PM
No one is arguing that your character is unbalanced.

As I asked before, if you're making your own custom race within a RP environment with already defined races, what is stopping everyone else from doing so?

Kaimetsu
03-17-2005, 12:10 AM
This is idiotic. The reality is, Graal Kingdoms has no central RP Enforcement besides the Kings

Which just means that the kings should regulate the roleplaying of their subjects.

This technique seems VERY believable

What, because you say so?

GryffonDurime
03-17-2005, 12:26 AM
No one is arguing that your character is unbalanced.

As I asked before, if you're making your own custom race within a RP environment with already defined races, what is stopping everyone else from doing so?

The fact that they want to RP as an already defined race, rather than a loner? They can right now, but dont.

Inspiration
03-17-2005, 01:49 AM
The fact that they want to RP as an already defined race, rather than a loner? They can right now, but dont.

Is it the fact that they want to play as that race, or is it that they conform to the RPing environment they are in, as you're supposed to?

What if after reading your post, everyone else has now decided to make their own race? Would it not completely destroy RPing on GK?

The Kingdoms would become near meaningless. Time would be spent arguing whos race is better and for what reasons, until it got to the situation like Kai made an example of, where each person had to have an attibute that made them better than the rest.

While you yourself claim your race is in no way superior to another, what if I was to make a race that, inherently, is no better than any other race, however "Daveons" are allergic to the breath of my race, and it kills them instantly upon inhalation. This, mind you, is in no way a "power". It's a normally useless attibute to my race, until I happen to breathe on you.

Can you tell me this killer breath does not exist? How do you know it doesnt exist? Where is it written that it does not exist? I don't see anywhere in GK rules, history, or practice, where having Daveon killing breath is not possible. I'm just customizing my own race, which normally is magically and physically weaker than other races. This is its only special attribute, so obviously, my race is not overpowered in any way.

Am I to be allowed to create this character?

zell12
03-17-2005, 01:58 AM
Would it not completely destroy RPing on GK?
What is there to destroy? :rolleyes:

Inspiration
03-17-2005, 02:16 AM
What is there to destroy? :rolleyes:

If everyone is playing by standards like this, presumably nothing.

Zurkiba
03-17-2005, 03:22 AM
The story behind Forest is that there were new races never seen on the old lands... then the dirty humans conquered their islands, forcing those creatures into the deep abyss of the Forest.

No you cant change that fact, I dont care if you're Kai or Gryffon or whoever... why? Because I made it that way. It is how Forest was made.

Kaimetsu
03-17-2005, 03:28 AM
The story behind Forest is that there were new races never seen on the old lands... then the dirty humans conquered their islands, forcing those creatures into the deep abyss of the Forest

Fair enough.

Understand that I am not arguing against new races per se. I am arguing against a lack of regulation, where players are free to invent those races for themselves.

GryffonDurime
03-17-2005, 04:04 AM
Fair enough.

Understand that I am not arguing against new races per se. I am arguing against a lack of regulation, where players are free to invent those races for themselves.

Daveons were created as part of a small attempt at a subkingdom on 2k1. Dustari, who pretty much controlled RPing on 2k1, agnowledged this group, if only shortly because it fell apart. My character was the only one who STAYED with that backstory.

Oh, and inspiration- People already argue about whose character is best for every other reason (skills, social class, etc), so why not race? While your daveon-killer breath may keep in the spirit of not being unbalanced, let's compare and contrast. I'm a Daveon. It means I basically have the attributes of an Elf with a desert culture. This is just mixing a CURRENT ability (virtual immortality) with cultural differences. I don't have some uber godmodding murder-breath. THAT breaks general standards of RP balance in the official servers.

Kaimetsu
03-17-2005, 04:22 AM
Daveons were created as part of a small attempt at a subkingdom on 2k1. Dustari, who pretty much controlled RPing on 2k1, agnowledged this group

I don't see how this goes against anything that I said.

Splke
03-18-2005, 11:16 AM
The fact of the matter is he has a character that is different. It isn't omniscient, it isn't God, it can't destroy the world in a blink of an eye, so shut the hell up.

If other people want to make their character into a God and disrupt the RP by doing exactly of what you've ranted on and on about for the past 2 pages, then let them. You can turn and yell at them for being idiots who probably enjoy the use of autoing.

The fact is the RP is FREEFORM, he can do whatever the hell he wants in a confine of mannered RP, plain and simple. Until his char blows up every other island then necromances the dead souls -- his character does nothing more then suit his fancy, and expand his RPing ability.

Kaimetsu
03-18-2005, 06:55 PM
The fact of the matter is he has a character that is different. It isn't omniscient, it isn't God, it can't destroy the world in a blink of an eye, so shut the hell up

The fact of the matter is that he has a character designed to be special (which in itself is bad practice), one that makes new assertions about a world that has to be shared between all of the players, so shut the hell up.

Waltz5
03-18-2005, 07:37 PM
The fact of the matter is that he has a character designed to be special (which in itself is bad practice)
As of now he's like every other player, his past is "special."

one that makes new assertions about a world that has to be shared between all of the players
He was like that in his own world, Obsydon or whatever, and then came to Graal. So it doesn't have to be shared between all players since he's the only one from there.


Not saying I agree with it, I just don't see the big deal since it has no factor in game. People in game probably don't even know about it, it's just something he likes.

Kaimetsu
03-18-2005, 07:41 PM
As of now he's like every other player, his past is "special."

Then he is special. A character's history is a part of what he is.

He was like that in his own world, Obsydon or whatever, and then came to Graal. So it doesn't have to be shared between all players since he's the only one from there

Now you're just equivocating. The term 'world' was not meant in the planetary sense.

Not saying I agree with it, I just don't see the big deal

Well, I hope you will someday manage to resolve that problem.

Crono
03-18-2005, 07:57 PM
Je suis fatigue.


OH MY SPEAKING FRENCH NOW ARE WE?

This thread is crazy :(

Butz
03-19-2005, 03:27 AM
In what little is written for an official backstory of Kingdoms, it mentions that the refugees from the original kingdoms fled the bomies and founded new kingdoms on the Archipelago. This means that the Archipelago is not the entire world, which means that there is leeway for other races from other lands that may not have been heard of by the cartographers of said Archipelago. Other than that, there is no canon backstory to encompass the entire world, so one person really can't bring up the claim that you're not allowed to use your imagination.

I certainly don't see a problem with Gryffon's character, as the racial difference merely seems to affect his character's personal values. Gryffon acts in a certain way and says certain things, because of the values of his culture.

It's really no different than two Humans, both raised in Human villages, except one was raised in a village of thieves, and therefore, acts radically different from the Human raised in a normal peaceful village. Though this difference isn't racial, they still have culture differences, and their actions have to be explained by the revelation of their past, just as how Gryffon's actions are explained through the revelation of his race. Two different ways to set a character apart from GENERIC RP CHARACTER A, but both just as valid.

Kaimetsu
03-19-2005, 03:46 AM
I certainly don't see a problem with Gryffon's character

Well, I do not think you are the most impartial of judges. What species is your character, again?

It's really no different than two Humans, both raised in Human villages, except one was raised in a village of thieves

Except that thieves already exist in the gameworld, and don't need to be invented. Such a backstory would be well within the realm of believability, and wouldn't require any major modification of the shared universe.

GryffonDurime
03-19-2005, 03:55 AM
Well, I do not think you are the most impartial of judges. What species is your character, again?



Except that thieves already exist in the gameworld, and don't need to be invented. Such a backstory would be well within the realm of believability, and wouldn't require any major modification of the shared universe.

ROLEPLAYING ANYTHING modifies the shared universe. It changes what has happened. Kaimetsu, it's not that you don't Rp on Thursdays- that's not germane to any kind of real point- it's that you don't roleplay on Thursdays in a certain room with certain people. That IS important- you know nothing of the actuality of how THAT GROUP roleplays.

Kaimetsu
03-19-2005, 04:04 AM
ROLEPLAYING ANYTHING modifies the shared universe

Did you notice that I used the word 'major'? And I didn't even need to go back and edit my post ^_^

Kaimetsu, it's not that you don't Rp on Thursdays- that's not germane to any kind of real point- it's that you don't roleplay on Thursdays in a certain room with certain people. That IS important- you know nothing of the actuality of how THAT GROUP roleplays.

1) "nothing"? Lil' bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? You think that playing GK is the only way to get a sense for how people roleplay therein?
2) How they do roleplay is irrelevant. This is about how they should roleplay.

zell12
03-19-2005, 06:09 AM
I can see where Kai is comming from though. I don't think any kingdom, not just forest, should have a bunch of people running around saying they are [insert a bunch of crazy names here] when the kingdoms have specific races. Like Forest, they had Dwarfs, Elves, humans, and even some Orcs on a small island. (I might of forgot one e.e)

But anyway, there should be some regulation I suppose?

Splke
03-19-2005, 01:13 PM
The fact of the matter is that he has a character designed to be special (which in itself is bad practice), one that makes new assertions about a world that has to be shared between all of the players, so shut the hell up.

Where would any RP go if nothing new was inserted? Dwarves, Elves, hell, mythology itself was at a time new, and yet it's commonly used in RP now, so why not his idea? :|

zell12
03-19-2005, 08:11 PM
Where would any RP go if nothing new was inserted? Dwarves, Elves, hell, mythology itself was at a time new, and yet it's commonly used in RP now, so why not his idea? :|
You can't have everyone making their own races, just think about it.

MasterNuke
03-19-2005, 08:15 PM
People want to be different. Deal with it.

zell12
03-19-2005, 08:49 PM
People want to be different. Deal with it.
With some limitations, they can.

GoZelda
03-20-2005, 12:53 AM
You can't have everyone making their own races, just think about it.
And what if people would be interested in this particular race?

Kaimetsu
03-20-2005, 01:26 AM
Where would any RP go if nothing new was inserted? Dwarves, Elves, hell, mythology itself was at a time new, and yet it's commonly used in RP now, so why not his idea? :|

I'm not saying that there's anything fundamentally wrong with the idea. I'm saying that unregulated roleplaying is a bad thing. Letting individuals make drastic changes to the shape and history of the world is dangerous.

busyrobot
03-21-2005, 02:00 AM
My 2 cents....I hate it when every player uses an amnesia backstory, but I don't mind at all when people use it rarely. Kai is talking about a theoretical danger, that everyone could as it stands, be a bunch of wierd made up races that result in a very disjointed community where no one knows what the heck anyone else is.

However, this has not happened in practice. Gryf is a rare unique race, and that can be consistant as long as rare and unique races in general are rare and unique. If and only if they become commonplace, is it an issue.

Also, the fear of everyone wanting crazy rp based powers as demons that can destroy whole cities - that is not happening either.

Considering that all of Kai's issues are with hypothetical problems that COULD occur, and given the number of literal and existing problems with RPing in GK today that DO occur and still persist and are problematic, I think the argument should be dismissed on the 'you are worrying about what?' note.

If everyone wanted a unique race, yes that would be annoying. However, its rare and he's been playing this character since 2k1.

Kaimetsu
03-21-2005, 02:12 AM
My 2 cents....I hate it when every player uses an amnesia backstory

Why is that, exactly? I mean, I feel the same way, I'm just wondering what you'd give as your reasons.

Kai is talking about a theoretical danger, that everyone could as it stands, be a bunch of wierd made up races that result in a very disjointed community where no one knows what the heck anyone else is.

However, this has not happened in practice

There's that fox guy, I think? I'm sure there would be others if the average Graal RPer actually bothered to design a backstory. Currently they're not doing that, so we don't see too many objectionable origins. But would you agree that designing an identity and history for your character is something to be encouraged? If we are hoping to have more people undergoing this process, it makes sense to agree on some ground rules beforehand.

Also, the fear of everyone wanting crazy rp based powers as demons that can destroy whole cities - that is not happening either

I dunno. Have you read this thread? (http://forums.graalonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58007)

Considering that all of Kai's issues are with hypothetical problems that COULD occur, and given the number of literal and existing problems with RPing in GK today that DO occur and still persist and are problematic, I think the argument should be dismissed on the 'you are worrying about what?' note

What other problems am I capable of addressing?

GryffonDurime
03-21-2005, 02:22 AM
2) How they do roleplay is irrelevant. This is about how they should roleplay.

Heil mein fuhrer Kaimetsu, apparently.

Telling people who participate in an activity you don't, in a group setting you're not a part of, how to do something seems like you're making some mighty big assumptions (pardon the southern diction). You ASSUME you know the problems that riddle this particular community. You ASSUME you know the best ways to solve them. Most of all, you ASSUME that everyone follows one unwritten set of laws. Wow, Graal as a Roleplaying community dosen't, "uniques" are the minority, not the majority as all of your assumptions would have us believe, the higher ups of the community seem to be in agreement- you are the most overbearing link, goodbye.

Kaimetsu
03-21-2005, 02:35 AM
Heil mein fuhrer Kaimetsu, apparently

Uh-oh, you broke Godwin's law. I hope you understand the implications.

Telling people who participate in an activity you don't, in a group setting you're not a part of, how to do something seems like you're making some mighty big assumptions

Person A likes to roleplay while wearing a three-metre-wide purple hat. He uses the name "SSJGOKUSSJJJJSJ123" and persists in asking other characters who they think will win American Idol. Is this bad roleplaying?

Ah! Don't answer just yet! First, ask yourself if you've ever roleplayed while wearing a huge purple hat.

You ASSUME you know the problems that riddle this particular community

I do? As I recall, I've only talked about one: You.

You ASSUME you know the best ways to solve them

No, that's just a matter of general gaming experience. I know what breaks up believability and irritates other people, because these things are common to all types of roleplaying. Wearing a hat or playing on Thursday doesn't change basic human psychology.

Most of all, you ASSUME that everyone follows one unwritten set of laws

Where? You seem to be giving me a lot of imaginary assumptions. I've merely been talking about good roleplaying protocols, I haven't asserted that people tend to follow them.

GryffonDurime
03-21-2005, 03:16 AM
Person A likes to roleplay while wearing a three-metre-wide purple hat. He uses the name "SSJGOKUSSJJJJSJ123" and persists in asking other characters who they think will win American Idol. Is this bad roleplaying?

Only if their community as a whole is opposed to Rping in that fashion.


No, that's just a matter of general gaming experience. I know what breaks up believability and irritates other people, because these things are common to all types of roleplaying. Wearing a hat or playing on Thursday doesn't change basic human psychology.

Belivability? In a world filled with go-karts, hockey, archaic knights, fish-based incarnations of ancient roman society, battle potatoes and where an ancient fuedal warlord system decides who wins a war by an Out-Of-Character trial by events masters?

Yeah, being a foreigner from a foreign place that seems unique REALLY kills believability there.

Where? You seem to be giving me a lot of imaginary assumptions. I've merely been talking about good roleplaying protocols, I haven't asserted that people tend to follow them.

No, but you've asserted that they SHOULD follow them. You're being horribly imperical about enforcing YOUR standards on a scenario THEY DONT APPLY TO.

Kaimetsu
03-21-2005, 03:46 AM
Only if their community as a whole is opposed to Rping in that fashion

So you would say that there is nothing which could be considered universally bad roleplaying?

Belivability? In a world filled with go-karts, hockey, archaic knights, fish-based incarnations of ancient roman society, battle potatoes and where an ancient fuedal warlord system decides who wins a war by an Out-Of-Character trial by events masters?

Yeah, pretty much. I've already told you: Realism isn't the same as believability. Why can't you grasp the difference?

No, but you've asserted that they SHOULD follow them

How is that the same as asserting that they do?

GryffonDurime
03-21-2005, 03:51 AM
Whatever Kaimetsu. What you think/say has no bearing on the community. The people OF THE COMMUNITY have voiced their opinion, mostly in my favor, and you can do nothing to disaude this alluvion of opinion. The fact that you do HAVE the power nor right to inforce these arbitrary stereotypes of what is and is not proper roleplaying makes me happy. As a matter of fact, I'd venture to say that it makes me feel downright tingly.

Kaimetsu
03-21-2005, 03:59 AM
The people OF THE COMMUNITY have voiced their opinion, mostly in my favor

So you are saying that the majority opinion of any arbitrarily chosen set of people is automatically correct?

Whatever Kaimetsu. What you think/say has no bearing on the community

True. The absence of proper roleplaying regulations means that you can damage that element of the server in whatever way that you want. You can freely abuse whatever power you have in order to make yourself feel special. Like the script kiddy that abuses security flaws in order to grant himself power, you are quite able to boast about other people's inability to stop you. Kudos to you!

GryffonDurime
03-21-2005, 04:32 AM
So you are saying that the majority opinion of any arbitrarily chosen set of people is automatically correct?
You seem pretty arbitrary.

True. The absence of proper roleplaying regulations means that you can damage that element of the server in whatever way that you want. You can freely abuse whatever power you have in order to make yourself feel special. Like the script kiddy that abuses security flaws in order to grant himself power, you are quite able to boast about other people's inability to stop you. Kudos to you!

Kudos to you, Kaimetsu. Your one skill seems to be arguing. I daresay I could hold a red pen up to you and listen to you lecture for two hours on how the pen is really blue. Things are what they are. The server is no worse the wear for my character being slightly unique yet not overpowered. There are bigger RP-damaging fish to fry, such as samurais named PoPo, Samurais period, angruy rastaffarian merchants that decide to turn elvish sans provocation, and a slew of noobie RPers who don't know IC from OOC.

I have been Daveon for three years. The server has yet to have a major gang-bang of uniques. Ghost Pirate's character was arguable more unique than mine- HE WAS DEAD. Yet he was a great Roleplayer, influenced both servers for the positive. I'm not going to pretend I've done his level of work for the ecosystem of Roleplaying, but I'm not going to sit here and let some verbose little debator slander me for wholy unfounded causes.

Kaimetsu
03-21-2005, 05:15 AM
You seem pretty arbitrary

Given your inability to answer my question, I'm inclined to think you don't know what it means.

Kudos to you, Kaimetsu. Your one skill seems to be arguing

My one skill? Do you really believe that's accurate?

I daresay I could hold a red pen up to you and listen to you lecture for two hours on how the pen is really blue. Things are what they are

I think you missed a couple of words there. Didn't you mean to say "Things are what I say they are"?

The server is no worse the wear for my character being slightly unique

According to you. See?

There are bigger RP-damaging fish to fry, such as samurais named PoPo, Samurais period, angruy rastaffarian merchants that decide to turn elvish sans provocation, and a slew of noobie RPers who don't know IC from OOC

Why are those bad things? Because you say so? Maybe you're just not wearing the right color of hat. If you mean to imply that those things are universally bad then you're just contradicting yourself. If you're saying that the majority think they're bad then you'll need to provide evidence. Do you have statistics? If such things are so commonly disliked, why do they still exist?

I have been Daveon for three years. The server has yet to have a major gang-bang of uniques. Ghost Pirate's character was arguable more unique than mine- HE WAS DEAD

Indeed, but that didn't require him to modify the universe in any significant way. Anybody can die, and we already know that there are undead creatures in the world.

I'm not going to sit here and let some verbose little debator slander me for wholy unfounded causes.

Little? >:O

busyrobot
03-21-2005, 05:29 AM
Why is that, exactly? I mean, I feel the same way, I'm just wondering what you'd give as your reasons.

When its overdone its annoying, and is often a lazy way to become mysterious or not think of a backstory. If Gryf had chosen an unknown race at a time that 'everyone was doing it' and didn't think it out at all, that would annoy me too. Its just not the case.


There's that fox guy, I think? I'm sure there would be others if the average Graal RPer actually bothered to design a backstory. Currently they're not doing that, so we don't see too many objectionable origins. But would you agree that designing an identity and history for your character is something to be encouraged? If we are hoping to have more people undergoing this process, it makes sense to agree on some ground rules beforehand.

There have been a few Furres in Dustari, most with well thought out backstories. Of course, rp character backgrounds are 'good' regardless of how mundane or 'special' they are. As for the process, usually the kingdoms regulate themselves, when a person has a question on what sort of backstory to write, they ask the advice of the King/Queen or an Rper in a senior rank. I helped many people write decent ones. When they work, then it helps RPing work, and if someone's story seems difficult, it works itself out and will likely get modified. In any case that is what kingdoms are for. If there are genuine inter kingdom problems 'ground rule' wise, they are worked out by the leaders if they are any good at engaging with the community as a whole.



I dunno. Have you read this thread? (http://forums.graalonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58007)

Doesn't seem to be very encouraging of the idea of having demonic origins, its sure not an endorsment of that by any means. If anything it supports what I am saying.


What other problems am I capable of addressing?
[/QUOTE]
Use your brain for that one.

Just a side note, about the 'not RPing on Thursdays' and such, you are making bad comparisons here. Same with the purple hats. What determines relevance of experience is participation within the community that it is in regards to. No one says "you don't rp so you don't know" or "you don't rp here so you don't know how" people are saying "you don't rp with this community, and it explains why your theories about this community are wrong and ill informed".

The thing is, we ARE in agreement that people don't want everyone having random races. If a few people added that element to their RP histories, their kingdom community would offer suggestions, and if it looked like it was becoming a fad, the kingdom community would directly discourage it. You are wrong to think it is all chaotic free-form. There is not supposed to be a centralized RP Rule Of Law dictator, the kingdoms are supposed to have good leaders that work with the members to help keep a good consistent community that works fluidly with the other communities. If that is flawed, its another discussion.

Kaimetsu
03-21-2005, 05:42 AM
When its overdone its annoying

Well, yeah. But I asked why you find it annoying.

As for the process, usually the kingdoms regulate themselves, when a person has a question on what sort of backstory to write, they ask the advice of the King/Queen or an Rper in a senior rank. I helped many people write decent ones

Excellent, I commend you on your efforts. But what if other kingdom leaders fail to do the same, or do it in a way that encourages bad practices? I mean, wasn't Gryffon once a king? Self-regulation is great, but only when it's done properly.

Doesn't seem to be very encouraging of the idea of having demonic origins, its sure not an endorsment of that by any means

That's not what it's supposed to demonstrate. Rather, it is an indication that people are engaging in this kind of unbalancing make-believe, and that more active discouragement might be a good thing. Certainly we could do without ex-kingdom-leaders setting a bad precedent.

Use your brain for that one

Well, that wasn't a very mature response. If you cannot think of any then just say so.

Just a side note, about the 'not RPing on Thursdays' and such, you are making bad comparisons here. Same with the purple hats. What determines relevance of experience is participation within the community that it is in regards to

I'll say to you what I said to Gryffon: Why? Because you say so? Who gets to draw the line between absolutes and relatives? Do you not agree that some things are universal?

The thing is, we ARE in agreement that people don't want everyone having random races. If a few people added that element to their RP histories, their kingdom community would offer suggestions, and if it looked like it was becoming a fad, the kingdom community would directly discourage it

So, what, is it first-come-first-served? Or I'll-let-you-be-special-because-you're-my-friend? How is either of those fair?

You are wrong to think it is all chaotic free-form. There is not supposed to be a centralized RP Rule Of Law dictator, the kingdoms are supposed to have good leaders that work with the members

But is that actually the case? If not, it is chaotic.

busyrobot
03-21-2005, 07:06 AM
Well, yeah. But I asked why you find it annoying.

Same reason other people find it annoying - when everyone is doing it usually its a quick solution to not having any other ideas. It rarely contributes something unique and creative.

Excellent, I commend you on your efforts. But what if other kingdom leaders fail to do the same, or do it in a way that encourages bad practices? I mean, wasn't Gryffon once a king? Self-regulation is great, but only when it's done properly.

Um, he is the current leader of Forest, unless I missed something recently. When its not done properly, we all post threads about how much the kingdom of such and such sucks and how its ruining GK. Search for references to KJ etc, you'll get the idea.

That's not what it's supposed to demonstrate. Rather, it is an indication that people are engaging in this kind of unbalancing make-believe, and that more active discouragement might be a good thing. Certainly we could do without ex-kingdom-leaders setting a bad precedent.

Its only a bad precedent if there is a problem, and it has not. If there was a pandemic of people rping as unsual creatures I could consider agreeing with you, but that would be a stretch. For instance, paladins are rare there is only able to be one Paladin of Dustari, and if he did that job well, would he be encouraging a problem of lots of people wanting to play paladins who are not in Dustari? Gryf, as one of a very few who play unsual species is not causing a problem any more than one good paladin would.

What determines the problem or level of unbalance is not myself or you, but whether the community is caused problems by it.

Well, that wasn't a very mature response. If you cannot think of any then just say so.

I can, I just don't have any interest in discussing them. I have already in many posts.


I'll say to you what I said to Gryffon: Why? Because you say so? Who gets to draw the line between absolutes and relatives? Do you not agree that some things are universal?

Its by loose consensus of the community as a whole.

So, what, is it first-come-first-served? Or I'll-let-you-be-special-because-you're-my-friend? How is either of those fair?

Usually its first come first serve, because when something is unique and creative it contributes to the community in a novel way, but when someone tries to do something that has already been done before that just doesn't fit at all, its a drag on the community. That is perfectly fair, because its about what works and what doesn't. Ironically, you are proposing that no one be allowed to, even when it doesn't cause any problems, which is unfair to people who are currently playing such characters.


But is that actually the case? If not, it is chaotic.
It is not so chaotic that everyone is playing some strange race from beyond the known lands. It is managed to a degree, and certianly can be better. However, improvement will be based on fixing the problems that bother the community, not fixing 'problems' that you, who does not RP with the community feel exist on a theoretical level.

Kaimetsu
03-21-2005, 07:38 AM
Same reason other people find it annoying - when everyone is doing it usually its a quick solution to not having any other ideas

So you just get annoyed by things that happen frequently? Does the amnesia thing do any real harm?

Um, he is the current leader of Forest, unless I missed something recently

I probably misinterpreted something. Of course, I only see what is posted to the board.

Its only a bad precedent if there is a problem, and it has not

Um. A precedent is something that precedes something else. The point isn't such much what has happened, but what might. If kingdom leaders are doing something, it kind of sets the message that it's okay.

For instance, paladins are rare there is only able to be one Paladin of Dustari

Yeah, but:

1) That's Dustari. One kingdom - one that's probably managed better than most of the others. If those mechanisms aren't in place in other kingdoms then it makes sense to empathise now that elaborate, dramatic, super-special world-altering backstories are something to avoid.
2) Choosing a paladin is much different to choosing who gets to invent a race. You can do it based on merits and objective factors like experience, length of membership, etc.

I can, I just don't have any interest in discussing them

Then you can't really use that point.

Its by loose consensus of the community as a whole

That answer doesn't make any sense. If a polarised group of people selects the absolutes then they're just not absolute anymore.

Usually its first come first serve

Okay. Should/will the devil guy get to keep his origin story? If not, why not?

Ironically, you are proposing that no one be allowed to, even when it doesn't cause any problems, which is unfair to people who are currently playing such characters

Wah. Maybe they'll need to invent characters that don't make them feel so special. Maybe they should've done that in the first place.

It is not so chaotic that everyone is playing some strange race from beyond the known lands

But what is stopping them from doing that? I mean, sure, some of the kingdoms oppose it, but they could always just move to another one.

However, improvement will be based on fixing the problems that bother the community

This is always such a lousy copout. Like you can't fix more than one thing at once?

busyrobot
03-21-2005, 08:07 AM
So you just get annoyed by things that happen frequently? Does the amnesia thing do any real harm?

When lots of people adopt it it breaks the suspension of disbelief and it limits the creativtity. So I wouldn't say 'yes it does' but 'yes it can' and it is thusly discouraged. People aren't told they can't, its just pointed out to them how common it is and if they are looking for something more original they should keep trying ideas or at least add something into the amesia story.


I probably misinterpreted something. Of course, I only see what is posted to the board.

Its been mentioned on this board a lot.


Um. A precedent is something that precedes something else. The point isn't such much what has happened, but what might. If kingdom leaders are doing something, it kind of sets the message that it's okay.

I know what precedent is, and the thing is that it IS okay for Gryf because its not overused. Bad, would be setting a precedent about using something that IS overused.

Yeah, but:

1) That's Dustari. One kingdom - one that's probably managed better than most of the others.

You base this on?

If those mechanisms aren't in place in other kingdoms then it makes sense to empathise now that elaborate, dramatic, super-special world-altering backstories are something to avoid.

He's from an obsure race, it has no world altering super special elements. OMG a different humanoid exists...so what? He isn't more powerful for it.

2) Choosing a paladin is much different to choosing who gets to invent a race. You can do it based on merits and objective factors like experience, length of membership, etc.

Being a paladin has more influence than having a special race.

Then you can't really use that point.

I think you would agree that I can, if we use a slightly different example. For instance, if someone read that the town you live in has a low rate of church attendance, and no one in that town cares, and the town was facing other issues of economics and safety. Does the fact that you don't want to name the specifics of the economic issues prevent you from making the observation that out of towner's grevience is of little importance compared to other issues?


That answer doesn't make any sense. If a polarised group of people selects the absolutes then they're just not absolute anymore.

There are no absolutes of rules, only a loose desire for everyone to be happy with how things go.

Okay. Should/will the devil guy get to keep his origin story? If not, why not?

Its not up to me, I assume they'll "see how it goes" and all that.


Wah. Maybe they'll need to invent characters that don't make them feel so special. Maybe they should've done that in the first place.

Wah, maybe you need to find something that concerns you to get upset about.

But what is stopping them from doing that? I mean, sure, some of the kingdoms oppose it, but they could always just move to another one.

They want a story that works with the group they play with. If the group says they feel it doesn't work, then most of the time they will get suggestions on how to refine it.


This is always such a lousy copout. Like you can't fix more than one thing at once?
This ain't broke.



This is really dumb and kinda simple: Gryf and a few people have unusual races, which at this time don't have any negative impact on the game. Other things, yes, these factors, no. You are against the idea in general, and are worried that there are no safeguards. Well, we haven't needed those safeguards yet, and the fact you don't like the idea doesn't mean much to the majority of the community here, who are more than content with this elements. You made your point, it wasn't that well recieved, no one wants to adhere to your suggestions. Enough said.

Kaimetsu
03-21-2005, 08:37 AM
Its been mentioned on this board a lot

I was judging from this thread (http://forums.graalonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57505). I couldn't bear to read through the entire thing, but the gist seemed to be that he had been denied leadership. Presumably it didn't end that way, but these details are irrelevant. That he is currently a kingdom leader only strengthens my point.

I know what precedent is, and the thing is that it IS okay for Gryf because its not overused

...

You recognise that the present and the future are different things, right?

You base this on?

Occasional observations. The Pirates, Samurai and Zormite seem to come under fire more often than Forest and Dustari. If I am mistaken, please let me know.

He's from an obsure race, it has no world altering super special elements

World-altering: It posits the existence of an entire race. That doesn't alter the world?
And it's not special to be a centuries-old dewinged-bird-turned-redeemed-elf creature?

He isn't more powerful for it

When was that ever the issue?

Being a paladin has more influence than having a special race

It is also more likely to involve wearing a shiny hat. What's the relevance?

I think you would agree that I can, if we use a slightly different example. For instance, if someone read that the town you live in has a low rate of church attendance, and no one in that town cares, and the town was facing other issues of economics and safety. Does the fact that you don't want to name the specifics of the economic issues prevent you from making the observation that out of towner's grevience is of little importance compared to other issues?

You're begging the question. Here's a better example:

A: "Hey, we shouldn't be worrying about (saving the rainforests/achieving world peace/finding a clean energy source/etc) while there's so much other stuff to be concerned about!!"
B: "Like what?"
A: "Um. I don't feel like answering that question"

Should we heed A's objection?

There are no absolutes of rules, only a loose desire for everyone to be happy with how things go

If there are no absolutes then the hat thing stands. If all rules are relative to the situation then you have absolutely no idea how to roleplay while wearing a huge purple hat. How could you? You don't have the experience.

Its not up to me, I assume they'll "see how it goes" and all that

Should/will the devil guy get to keep his origin story?

Wah, maybe you need to find something that concerns you to get upset about

Haha, please try to stay on topic.

They want a story that works with the group they play with

Who does? Every roleplayer in existence? And are all the kingdoms strict about what 'works'?

Gryf and a few people have unusual races, which at this time don't have any negative impact on the game

Or, rather, on your enjoyment of the game.

no one wants to adhere to your suggestions

Man, my objective here isn't to convert people like Gryffon. I'm just not that optimistic. This whole thing is primarily a fun debate, but there's a slim possibility that some of you will actually think about what's been said here, and if that leads to improvement then all the better. Just don't think that I'm depending on it.

busyrobot
03-21-2005, 12:19 PM
I was judging from this thread (http://forums.graalonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57505). I couldn't bear to read through the entire thing, but the gist seemed to be that he had been denied leadership. Presumably it didn't end that way, but these details are irrelevant. That he is currently a kingdom leader only strengthens my point.

You are just compounding the obviousness of your ignorance to the current affairs of the community. Who is to say when you need direct experience to offer advice? When the fast majority of the people you are offering advice to decide to tell you to stop babbling and go away is a good start. There are exceptions, but this isn't one of them.

...

You recognise that the present and the future are different things, right?

Duh, and I do understand what you are saying, I got it a few posts ago. What you are missing is that the only precedent gryf is setting is to be creative. If people all 'do what he did' they would do something original and creative, which would not include starting a fad of a million unique races.

Hey I was a king once, if I close my eyes when I sleep, and I setting a precedent for people to think its fine to close their eyes while driving? Can you see how your argument breaks down yet?


Occasional observations. The Pirates, Samurai and Zormite seem to come under fire more often than Forest and Dustari. If I am mistaken, please let me know.

And yet you can't even tell us who the current leader of Forest is. Forgive me if I find your research to be... not beyond reproach.


World-altering: It posits the existence of an entire race. That doesn't alter the world?
And it's not special to be a centuries-old dewinged-bird-turned-redeemed-elf creature?

Unless 'they' invade or something I would say 99% of the graal world wouldn't even notice any impact without meeting him. I doubt anyone would say 'BIRD RACE??? CRAP!! YOU RUINED IT!!! I AM QUITTING THIS GAME!'

When was that ever the issue?

You have to measure impact when someone adopts a new type of rp element. If he was a fallen god who could turn people to stone with his finger nail clippings that would be something to get bothered about.


It is also more likely to involve wearing a shiny hat. What's the relevance?

To roleplay with a paladin, you can assume his word is trusted and he has influence over many in the church, gets special treatment, and has advantages other players do not. There is more impact on other players to play with a paladin than with Gryf's characterr. That is the relevance.


You're begging the question. Here's a better example:

A: "Hey, we shouldn't be worrying about (saving the rainforests/achieving world peace/finding a clean energy source/etc) while there's so much other stuff to be concerned about!!"
B: "Like what?"
A: "Um. I don't feel like answering that question"

Should we heed A's objection?

Sorry, did you mean to say 'dumb' example? Think for two seconds,
rainforest = current problem
wars all over the world = current problem
energy polution = current problem

then we have...
Kai is worried one day, even though it hasn't happened yet in the last 3 yrs that gryf has been a strange race, that everyone will want to be some strange race and it will eventually impact RPing negatively on the server = theoretical problem only you feel is likely to occur

Get the picture yet?

If there are no absolutes then the hat thing stands. If all rules are relative to the situation then you have absolutely no idea how to roleplay while wearing a huge purple hat. How could you? You don't have the experience.

Where do you get that deductive result? I know you are smarter than this, just try to review it for a moment. The purple hat...if a person has other traits in their RP style to which any hat is irrelevant then you can talk about those and have credibility assuming you do have experience that is relevant.

Hat types...not relevant. Contemporary experience with the community in question...very relevant. If you have roleplayed, you have probably worn enough variety of hats anyway that a purple one is not a significant variant anyway. There is absolutely nothing for you to hang that argument on.

If you want to know what the absolutes are, the absolute bottom line is 'are people having fun rping or not?'


Should/will the devil guy get to keep his origin story?

How should I know? Without talking to the members and all that, I can't tell what the group wants.


Haha, please try to stay on topic.

Please don't take snipes at players you don't even play with.

Who does? Every roleplayer in existence? And are all the kingdoms strict about what 'works'?

The individual with the story. I use 'they' in place of 'he/she' for singular at times. Not all kingdoms are as strict or even consistent but the issue then is if cross-kingdom conflicts arise, and they do at times, but if the leaders are decent they get worked out.


Or, rather, on your enjoyment of the game.

No, not mine. I am talking about the communitys' enjoyment.

Man, my objective here isn't to convert people like Gryffon. I'm just not that optimistic. This whole thing is primarily a fun debate, but there's a slim possibility that some of you will actually think about what's been said here, and if that leads to improvement then all the better. Just don't think that I'm depending on it.
Perfect, then we can say 'alright you lost' and all get on with other topics.

Kaimetsu
03-21-2005, 10:31 PM
You are just compounding the obviousness of your ignorance to the current affairs of the community

Oi, the ad hominems begin again. Unless you can show that knowing the current leaders of all the kingdoms is a prerequisite for understanding good roleplaying practices, your argument reduces to a desperate, petty attack.

Duh, and I do understand what you are saying, I got it a few posts ago. What you are missing is that the only precedent gryf is setting is to be creative

Well that's a pretty stupid argument.

A: "Hey, kid, I'm gonna sanction your act of murder this time because you were really really angry"
B: "But judge, doesn't that set a bad precedent?"
A: "What? No. The only precedent it sets is to make law rulings of some sort, which is good!"

You can't pick and choose, man. Every aspect of everything he does is included in this precedent. The nature of the 'creativity' is just as important as the nature of A's ruling.

And yet you can't even tell us who the current leader of Forest is. Forgive me if I find your research to be... not beyond reproach

Don't be ridiculous. Complaints about RPing are far more common than threads about new leaders. If I read random threads, it's to be expected that I'll see more of the former than the latter. Since the latter neither concerns me nor affects the debate, there's no reason to raise it.

Again: If I am mistaken in my assessment of the kindgoms, please correct me. Is Dustari below average in terms of management, then?

Unless 'they' invade or something I would say 99% of the graal world wouldn't even notice any impact without meeting him

Well, it would be nice to imagine a world where nobody ever has to meet him, but I don't think that's entirely viable.

You have to measure impact when someone adopts a new type of rp element. If he was a fallen god who could turn people to stone with his finger nail clippings that would be something to get bothered about

Agreed. But that wasn't the basis on which I was criticising him. You don't gain any ground in this debate by arguing against points that I never made.

There is more impact on other players to play with a paladin than with Gryf's characterr

Yeah, probably. And again, the paladin has a shiny hat. Neither factor relates to the issue of letting people invent kooky backstories.

Sorry, did you mean to say 'dumb' example? Think for two seconds,
rainforest = current problem

I doubt that A would agree. But, of course, you're automatically right because you say so? You cannot simply assert that something isn't a problem and expect your word to seal the debate. The whole point of the thread is to determine whether or not that's the case.

And this still doesn't change the fact that your allusions to greater problems mean diddley-squat if you don't actually specify them.

Where do you get that deductive result?

Sigh.

By saying that the purple hat makes no difference, you are positing the existence of absolutes - factors that are true regardless of your current attire. You also tell me that these absolutes are decided by a polarised group of roleplayers, making them strictly relative, according to your logic. If they're not absolute then who's to say that wearing a purple hat doesn't modify the experience beyond your comprehension? If they are absolute then you need to show how you determined them, and show that the process wouldn't work equally for me.

Summary: If you can dismiss hats as irrelevant as a matter of assertion, I can do the same with arbitrary GK details.

How should I know? Without talking to the members and all that, I can't tell what the group wants

You take a survey every time you want to make a decision? When was the last time?

Please don't take snipes at players you don't even play with

What snipes? I identified a subset of players. If anybody is in that subset of players then they are in that subset of players, and my comment applies to them. If not, it doesn't. There's nothing personal about it. Would I be sniping if I said "murderers should be in prison"?

Not all kingdoms are as strict or even consistent but the issue then is if cross-kingdom conflicts arise

And would they? If one kingdom were letting players be incarnations of gods, what would the others actually do about it?

No, not mine. I am talking about the communitys' enjoyment

Ah, you took a survey?

Perfect, then we can say 'alright you lost' and all get on with other topics.

Oh man, now you're breaking Godwin's laws. You people clearly need more practice at this.

busyrobot
03-22-2005, 08:28 AM
blah

As usual you use a series BS claims in how everyone else's arguments are flawed, and when you are called on it you just break down the reply with a series of quoted one liners that are even less coherent. The only three possible outcomes are to drop the topic, find the thread locked, or run out of disk space.

Sure, I could be tempted to point out that Godwin's Law applies to **** references, which I did not make, and unless there is some obscure corollary your invocation of it is completely in error. However, even though I could make a point of that, it doesn't matter - even if you were right and I am breaking Godwin's Law by saying "Perfect, then we can say 'alright you lost' and all get on with other topics." its entirely ancillary to the debate. Its deflective on your part, as are most of your 'points' that you make. I really don't care about Godwin's Law, its somewhat cute, but of little relevance.

If you can't see your purple hat idea is completely flawed that's fine. I am not going to debate a gorilla about fiber optics and if you can't figure out what is obvious to others about your own comments that is really your problem.

Your judge/murder thing - how can you say something that flawed without it being a baiting ploy?

To be honest, I really suspect you just enjoy baiting people and making arguments you know are flawed, just to see how long you can keep people going. That is the most logical explination given - it is really hard to believe you suffer tunnel vision to the depth displayed here unless you have an ulterior motive.

Kaimetsu
03-22-2005, 08:44 AM
As usual you use a series BS claims in how everyone else's arguments are flawed

No, you do! I don't have to prove it, I just have to say it!!!

Sure, I could be tempted to point out that Godwin's Law applies to **** references, which I did not make, and unless there is some obscure corollary your invocation of it is completely in error

Man, he has more than one law. Did you notice that I already invoked his most famous one in dealing with Gryffon, when he likened me to a ****? Don't you think that shows that I know what it is?

Its deflective on your part, as are most of your 'points' that you make

What was I deflecting? Your arrogant, self-righteous claim to victory? Sorry, but if you make such unwarranted claims then you don't get to complain when your opponent gives you a flippant answer. You weren't contributing to the debate, so why should my reply?

If you can't see your purple hat idea is completely flawed that's fine

If you can't see that your everything-is-relative idea is completely flawed, that's fine. I don't expect that I can change your mind without laboriously teaching you the meanings of all the relevant words.

Your judge/murder thing - how can you say something that flawed without it being a baiting ploy?

Your he's-not-setting-a-precedent thing - how can you say something that flawed? Like, at all? You must be the flawingest guy in the world.

To be honest, I really suspect you just enjoy baiting people and making arguments you know are flawed

What a coincidence! I was gonna say the same to you. In fact, I will!

To be honest, I really suspect you just enjoy baiting people and making arguments you know are flawed.

Sorry if it seemed like I deflected all of your valid debatey points!!

Sildae
03-22-2005, 03:34 PM
Sure, I could be tempted to point out that Godwin's Law applies to **** references, which I did not make, and unless there is some obscure corollary your invocation of it is completely in error. However, even though I could make a point of that, it doesn't matter - even if you were right and I am breaking Godwin's Law by saying "Perfect, then we can say 'alright you lost' and all get on with other topics." its entirely ancillary to the debate. Its deflective on your part, as are most of your 'points' that you make. I really don't care about Godwin's Law, its somewhat cute, but of little relevance.

Dude, Godwin's Law is not a judiciary one but more a formalization of an observation. Mentioning ****s in a discussion does not break it, but only confirm it.

You can only break Godwin's Law if you maintain an infinitely long thread in which no mention of ****s is made. And I really do not want to see you do that.

busyrobot
03-22-2005, 10:22 PM
Dude, Godwin's Law is not a judiciary one but more a formalization of an observation. Mentioning ****s in a discussion does not break it, but only confirm it.

You can only break Godwin's Law if you maintain an infinitely long thread in which no mention of ****s is made. And I really do not want to see you do that.

Kai used the 'break' term which was a missused one to describe 'loosing by' Godwin's Law.
If the law can be broken it would probably require resorting to **** comparisons and still manage to win the argument, though that would be unlikely to ever happen.

Sildae
03-22-2005, 10:41 PM
If the law can be broken it would probably require resorting to **** comparisons and still manage to win the argument, though that would be unlikely to ever happen.
The law has nothing to do with winning arguments.

busyrobot
03-22-2005, 11:04 PM
Man, he has more than one law. Did you notice that I already invoked his most famous one in dealing with Gryffon, when he likened me to a ****? Don't you think that shows that I know what it is?

Perhaps it would help if you didn't use it in wrong places too?
You can call a non-sequitur a non-sequitur, and then a completely different fallacy a non-sequitur as well, and it would denote a lack of understanding. I am more curious as to how exactly you feel I 'broke' Godwin's law.


blah


This is an old game, I point out the flaws in your arguments based on what you say, then you parrot them and act as if you based your retorts on something other than monkey-see.

If you really want it broken down for you here is how it works:

Concept of precedent is that by allowing an action, you are sanctioning further similar acts on the grounds it was accepted originally.
Your comparisons however, intentially skew what can be considered an 'act' and following 'similar acts' in a case of precedent.

In your case regarding the murder analogy, it was even more flawed. To sanction murder because a person was 'very very angry' is not even a case where something is acceptable in the original but can lead to a bad precedent. Of course, you went for one of the largest most emotionally charged negative too, second to say ****s and a few other things.

If you want to get back to a closer to intact argument, you could argue that while obviously Gryf's choice in race has not been a problem that it could set a precedent by which future players are encouraged to use a similar backstory and that that could cause problems.

However, that breaks down the same way as saying that if you allow a person to claim self defense in a murder case, that it will allow all murderers to be able to get away with murder. The reason is there are other material factors involved. In the case of Gryffon, he has been playing the same character for several years - since 2k1. The community has in that time been happy with this character, and it has not led to any problems. If someone was to 'follow' that precedent there would still be material differences. These differences include, but are not limited to, that it is somewhat 'out of fashion' to have outlandish characters today, and they are actually discouraged. Players want to be involved with their kingdoms, and avoid RP histories that will only lead to conflicts within their kingdom.

I can also point out the specific flaws in your other arguments, but I barely even care to bother pointing these out to you. If you want to defend your murder analogy, perhaps comment on that, but I don't really see any point in this debate at all. Just don't post a series of pointless one liners, that gets pretty old pretty fast.

busyrobot
03-22-2005, 11:11 PM
The law has nothing to do with winning arguments.

Actually your right, the law as it is written in a matter that the only way to break it would be to continue a converstation infititely, without mentioning ****s.

The general use of the law is to say if you make a **** comparison you have all but lost your argument, which is what I meant when I said that winning an arugment after mentioning ****s would do it, but that was inaccurate.

My comments on my breaking of godwin's law was in reponse to Kai's claim that I broke it, and that he was inaccurate to state such.

Kaimetsu
03-22-2005, 11:34 PM
Perhaps it would help if you didn't use it in wrong places too?

I already told you that there's more than one (although possibly they're not existent outside of Livejournal). Did you know that adding an 's' to the end of a word denotes plurality?

This is an old game, I point out the flaws in your arguments based on what you say, then you parrot them

No. You make groundless assertions and accusations, expecting them to actually carry some weight, and I show that they work equally well in either direction.

Concept of precedent is that by allowing an action, you are sanctioning further similar acts on the grounds it was accepted originally.
Your comparisons however, intentially skew what can be considered an 'act' and following 'similar acts' in a case of precedent

If the nature of the law-making is included in the precedent, why isn't the nature of the roleplaying? Why are you allowed to be selective here?

In your case regarding the murder analogy, it was even more flawed. To sanction murder because a person was 'very very angry' is not even a case where something is acceptable in the original but can lead to a bad precedent

And once more you beg the question by assuming that Gryffon's actions are acceptable. You can't use it as the basis of your arguments or criticisms until you've shown it to be true.

there are other material factors involved. In the case of Gryffon, he has been playing the same character for several years - since 2k1. The community has in that time been happy with this character, and it has not led to any problems

Again, assertion.

1) I very much doubt that anybody would actually forbid a player from crafting a similar backstory.
2) You assume that it hasn't led to any problems. I ask again: Have you taken a survey?

I can also point out the specific flaws in your other arguments, but I barely even care to bother pointing these out to you

Hahaha.

GryffonDurime
03-23-2005, 06:51 AM
I'd like to see an end to this back and forth bantering starting now. It's counter productive, and cluttering this forum with trash.

Godwin's law, as padren said, is a cute little theory. I give it about as much credibility and respect as, oh, say, a livejournal posting or perhaps a popup. Wow, I compared a **** to someone having an attitude that "I am right, you are wrong, even if it's none of my business". Invading OUR community's roleplay practices, though not as severe, genocidal, or tragic, is indeed semi-congruent to invading a foreign country to expand your little egocentric empire of Kai-land.

That being said, we return you to your normal thread, still in progress despite Kaimetsu's best attempts to derail it was thinly-veiled sarcastic quips and psuedo-intellectial allusions to esoteric laws of the internet counter-culture.

Kaimetsu
03-23-2005, 06:59 AM
I'd like to see an end to this back and forth bantering starting now

Then why do you perpetuate it?

Wow, I compared a **** to someone having an attitude that "I am right, you are wrong, even if it's none of my business". Invading OUR community's roleplay practices

I'm invading nothing. I don't profess to have any power over what you do, I merely criticise your childish and egocentric need to have a superspecial character.

That being said, we return you to your normal thread, still in progress despite Kaimetsu's best attempts to derail it

I'm derailing it? You just dedicated an entire post to insulting me, without tackling any of the issues being discussed!

Lance
03-23-2005, 08:25 AM
I'd like to see an end to this back and forth bantering starting now. It's counter productive, and cluttering this forum with trash.

Valid debate isn't trash. This thread has proven an interesting and informative read.

Godwin's law, as padren said, is a cute little theory. I give it about as much credibility and respect as, oh, say, a livejournal posting or perhaps a popup. Wow, I compared a **** to someone having an attitude that "I am right, you are wrong, even if it's none of my business". Invading OUR community's roleplay practices, though not as severe, genocidal, or tragic, is indeed semi-congruent to invading a foreign country to expand your little egocentric empire of Kai-land.

Ya'know, Kaimetsu is part of the community, too. Rumor has it that he even enjoys Role-Playing. I guess you've never roleplayed wearing a huge purple hat.

I don't think Kai can help it if you can't (or, in the case of Padren (if he is to be believed), won't) counter his points.

That being said, we return you to your normal thread, still in progress despite Kaimetsu's best attempts to derail it was thinly-veiled sarcastic quips and psuedo-intellectial allusions to esoteric laws of the internet counter-culture.

I'm not sure what thread you're reading here, but Kaimetsu's been firmly arguing on-topic. The only derails I see are those that choose to argue against the person rather than against the arguments. I believe we call that 'ad hominem' in the grown-up world, and it's generally considered a poor debate tactic.

busyrobot
03-23-2005, 09:45 PM
Valid debate isn't trash. This thread has proven an interesting and informative read.



Ya'know, Kaimetsu is part of the community, too. Rumor has it that he even enjoys Role-Playing. I guess you've never roleplayed wearing a huge purple hat.

I don't think Kai can help it if you can't (or, in the case of Padren (if he is to be believed), won't) counter his points.



I'm not sure what thread you're reading here, but Kaimetsu's been firmly arguing on-topic. The only derails I see are those that choose to argue against the person rather than against the arguments. I believe we call that 'ad hominem' in the grown-up world, and it's generally considered a poor debate tactic.



You can derail a topic while being on topic - if you are talking about the quality of bullet trains you can always compare them to purple hats...its on topic but it doesn't contribute anything to the topic.

A valid debate is not trash, but I would hardly call this a valid debate. Its a series of hyperbolic emotionally charged inheirently flawed analogies glued around a person's pet peeve, with responses in the range of 'what the hell are you on?' to 'um reality works like this...' and such.

Kai can enjoy roleplaying, but when he claims something is damaging the roleplaying community here, at the same time as he acknowledges he doesn't roleplay with the community here, and is not aware of the current events in the community here, I don't think he has the credibility to tell individual players here what they should and should not be able to do.

If you enjoy the debate you can take it up with Kai if you like, I don't think anyone else other than Kai is enjoying themselves. Myself, I have a hard time believing someone as intelligent as Kai would be so handicapped by tunnel vision to persist in his insistance that his fallacies are sound. Its probably an errant hope, but I do hope that if I break down the logic into smaller and smaller bite sized parts, maybe eventually if tea spoon fed, he will where we is off the mark. It is generally useless because no matter how simplified things get, he doesn't really care if he looks like to fool to everyone else as long as he can still convince himself that he was clever and witty.

Kaimetsu
03-24-2005, 01:21 AM
You can derail a topic while being on topic - if you are talking about the quality of bullet trains you can always compare them to purple hats...its on topic but it doesn't contribute anything to the topic

Well, nor do your pathetic attempts at rebuttals.

Its a series of hyperbolic emotionally charged inheirently flawed analogies

No, your arguments are "inheirently" flawed! HAH.

when he claims something is damaging the roleplaying community here

When did I say that? Can you only defeat somebody's argument if you intentionally misrepresent it? My argument is that Gryffon's backstory:


Indicates an egocentric attitude to roleplaying, which (even you must agree) is something to be avoided.
Encourages other people to adopt or develop similar attitudes, especially since he commands a kingdom.


For all I know, we might've been lucky up to now. Maybe you're right, maybe he hasn't had much of a negative influence. But I do not think that luck is a good reason to sanction disruptive behaviour.

I have a hard time believing someone as intelligent as Kai would be so handicapped by tunnel vision to persist in his insistance that his fallacies are sound

Right back atcha', buddy. Except without the pseudo-compliment.


Now, it would be awesome if you could offer more in this debate than "KAI IS WRONG KAI IS DUMB KAI IS THE SATAN". Like, maybe rational arguments in place of all your insults and assertions?

busyrobot
03-24-2005, 05:39 AM
lalala

I wasn't talking to you.

Kaimetsu
03-24-2005, 05:58 AM
I wasn't talking to you.

Did that stop you when I was talking to Gryffon? :rolleyes:

busyrobot
03-24-2005, 06:36 AM
Did that stop you when I was talking to Gryffon? :rolleyes:


There was hope for you then.


But since you've given me such a painfully easy example here, one more time just for you:

You contend you are making points effectively, I contend you are stating what sounds decent to you but has no actual factual or logical basis other than leaning in bias towards supporting your opinions.

Case in point:

I say: when he claims something is damaging the roleplaying community here
You reply: When did I say that? Can you only defeat somebody's argument if you intentionally misrepresent it? My argument is that Gryffon's backstory:

1. Indicates an egocentric attitude to roleplaying, which (even you must agree) is something to be avoided.
2. Encourages other people to adopt or develop similar attitudes, especially since he commands a kingdom.

However, not only does (2) of your own list mention clearly damaging factors happening to the community, you had stated in previous posts that:

And once more you beg the question by assuming that Gryffon's actions are acceptable. You can't use it as the basis of your arguments or criticisms until you've shown it to be true.

At that point, you want me to prove that Gryf's actions are acceptable and not harming/damaging the RP community. Okay, then we have this quote of yours in regards to the harm Gryf is doing to the community:

Um. A precedent is something that precedes something else. The point isn't such much what has happened, but what might. If kingdom leaders are doing something, it kind of sets the message that it's okay.

So we are back again to what? That Gryf isn't doing something that is a problem, but it could lead to other people doing the same thing and resulting in problems...even though there is no history of that happening in the last several years because of the checks and balances that you still suspect can't exist.

And of course, you have used this argument a lot Understand that I am not arguing against new races per se. I am arguing against a lack of regulation, where players are free to invent those races for themselves.

You have said that Gryf is damaging GK by adding a race that affects all the players, and when that is challanged you argue that you are actually arguing that its a dangerous precedent, and not about gryf specifically, but about a lack of regulation. Then its about Gryf being a bad example, then him damaging GK some more and the whole while you like to tell everyone else that their arguments are flawed because they can't keep up with your stance-of-the-moment.

You are all over the place Kai. Gryf and characters like him hurt the GK world by forcing new races on other players, then its just a bad precedent then a bad example and precedent then its just about the lack of regulation and not about Gryf's race specifically....can you see why you are lacking in the debate department yet?

You play the fence, when you get cornered you'll ask for people to pretty much provide evidence that they are not figments of your imaginiation before you'll accept anything they say, you flip, flop, you choose to relegate anything of relevance as irrelevent if it doesn't suit you, requiring grand proofs yet never offer any for your own arguments, you make the worst analogies in the world, then when cornered on them backpedal and claim they were 'parodies' of your opponents. You are a great arguer, and a poor debator.

You can post all the one liners and say 'NO-U-DEWS' you want but at some point in the future when people are reminded of that Kai person who posted on those graal forums, it will be your childish 'mannerisms' and annoying habits that will stand out in memory, if anything does.

Kaimetsu
03-24-2005, 07:47 AM
There was hope for you then

And, what, I shouldn't have talked to you because the same isn't true here? Because there's no hope for you?

You contend you are making points effectively, I contend you are stating what sounds decent to you but has no actual factual or logical basis

Yes. And I contend that, although you say that in pretty much every post, you do not (and evidently cannot) show that it is the case.

However, not only does (2) of your own list mention clearly damaging factors happening to the community

Do you understand the difference between encouraging somebody to do something and forcing them to do it? In fact, there are many differences! One particularly relevant one is that, in the former case, negative consequences are not always immediately obvious. Whether or not Gryffon's actions have any direct, immediate effect on the community is impossible to say. But I can certainly argue that they increase the probability of bad things happening.

At that point, you want me to prove that Gryf's actions are acceptable and not harming/damaging the RP community

That would be nice. Although, as explained above, the latter would not be the same as the former.

Okay, then we have this quote of yours in regards to the harm Gryf is doing to the community:

Um. A precedent is something that precedes something else. The point isn't so much what has happened, but what might

What exactly are you trying to argue here? That irresponsible behaviour is only bad if it yields immediate negative results? Let's say I load a bullet into a revolver, spin the barrel and then attempt to shoot somebody. Fortunately for them, the current chamber is not the one with the bullet, so they remain unharmed. By your logic, is my behaviour acceptable?

there is no history of that happening in the last several years

Except if you include the "I AM DEMON RAR" story that was posted just a week ago.

Yes, there's no way for me to link that directly to Gryffon, but I don't really need to. If a kingdom leader is using a glamorous character to make him feel special then he is automatically encouraging everybody else to do the same. He's contributing to a disruptive tendency.

Not to mention that the very use of that backstory implies a distinct lack of RP humility. Anybody that wants to be the protagonist of an MMORPG needs to reexamine his motivation before he gets involved in a roleplaying event, let alone tries to lead anybody else.

And of course, you have used this argument a lot Understand that I am not arguing against new races per se. I am arguing against a lack of regulation, where players are free to invent those races for themselves.

You have said that Gryf is damaging GK by adding a race that affects all the players, and when that is challanged you argue that you are actually arguing that its a dangerous precedent, and not about gryf specifically, but about a lack of regulation

Uh, actually I'm arguing against them all. Like, at the same time. Yeah. One of my many talents is that I can hold more than one opinion at once!

As I said, I'm not against new races per se. That doesn't mean I'm not against Gryffon's race or the fox guy's race or whatever. It means that, if done properly, the introduction of new races could be something I support. There is no contradiction here at all.

The lack of regulation is a bad thing. It lets people get carried away with disruptive, egocentric roleplaying.

And Gryffon is setting a precedent. The dudes that want to be the Dark LizardMen of Al'Grat'Khur can point at him and say "hey, if he's allowed..."

You play the fence, when you get cornered you'll ask for people to pretty much provide evidence that they are not figments of your imaginiation before you'll accept anything they say, you flip, flop, you choose to relegate anything of relevance as irrelevent if it doesn't suit you, requiring grand proofs yet never offer any for your own arguments, you make the worst analogies in the world, then when cornered on them backpedal and claim they were 'parodies' of your opponents. You are a great arguer

You stalwartly march into threads with pomp and pride and not the slightest idea about what your opponent is saying. When he refutes your claims you resort to attacking him on unrelated matters such as the color of his hat. You make crafted assertions to support your case but refuse to back them up. You dismiss arguments, examples and analogies without even trying to prove them invalid. In the end, when everything is going wrong, you break out the psychoanalysis and attempt to blame the whole thing on the traumatising events of your opponent's ninth birthday. By this point, you've given up on debating and every post you make is a frantic, groundless insistence that you are right and your opponent is wrong. You are a terrible arguer.

Zero Hour
03-24-2005, 07:50 AM
Why do you still entertain this topic and thread, Kaimetsu?

Kaimetsu
03-24-2005, 07:54 AM
Why do you still entertain this topic and thread, Kaimetsu?

Why do you think? It helps me catch up to Kamuii.
I'll wager that's better than Padren's excuse!

Zero Hour
03-24-2005, 08:07 AM
Why do you think? It helps me catch up to Kamuii.
I'll wager that's better than Padren's excuse!
Heh... [:

busyrobot
03-24-2005, 10:21 AM
And, what, I shouldn't have talked to you because the same isn't true here? Because there's no hope for you?

I'm sorry, did I miss something? Am I the fellow that starting whining about Gryf baselessly?


Yes. And I contend that, although you say that in pretty much every post, you do not (and evidently cannot) show that it is the case.

Not to your satisfaction, and since you like to play both debator and moderator I suppose that means I am always wrong.


Do you understand the difference between encouraging somebody to do something and forcing them to do it? In fact, there are many differences! One particularly relevant one is that, in the former case, negative consequences are not always immediately obvious.
Whether or not Gryffon's actions have any direct, immediate effect on the community is impossible to say. But I can certainly argue that they increase the probability of bad things happening.

Yet, his character was started way back on 2k1. Are we worried the sky will fall...one day in the distant future on graal 3D?

That is an example of a totally deflective statement that is still on topic. It has already been established that Gryffon has had his current character for a very long time - perhaps one of the longest consistently played characters in graal.
You bring up a good fact that impacts are not always immediate, yet it is entirely irrelevant to this topic, as we are talking about a very very old character.

Do you have have some special insight to share on how it is actually relevant or will you just choose not to quote and respond to this part?


That would be nice. Although, as explained above, the latter would not be the same as the former.

Interesting, what would you consider to be within the realm of possibility that would result in you loosing a debate?


What exactly are you trying to argue here? That irresponsible behaviour is only bad if it yields immediate negative results? Let's say I load a bullet into a revolver, spin the barrel and then attempt to shoot somebody. Fortunately for them, the current chamber is not the one with the bullet, so they remain unharmed. By your logic, is my behaviour acceptable?

That is a great example of irresponsible behavior, and I would be greviously in error if I was to endorse that sort of conduct, however you could not have selected a more extreeme and poor example, unless your goal is to show something very stupid to do with very bad results. If you are looking at analogies solely for their emotional impact it would take ****s to top that one.


Except if you include the "I AM DEMON RAR" story that was posted just a week ago.

I wouldn't doubt it if he's rethinking the quality of that story, but regardless I am sure the subsequent posts to that story would not encourage the 'rampant' use of obscure races. It supports exactly what I am saying here, and erodes the validity of your claim that such an event would likely lead to the uberdemonification of gk. Those sorts of stories will not make someone popular, and people fill find stories that allow them to play more happily with the rest of the community, since that is what they are after.

Yes, there's no way for me to link that directly to Gryffon, but I don't really need to. If a kingdom leader is using a glamorous character to make him feel special then he is automatically encouraging everybody else to do the same. He's contributing to a disruptive tendency.

Right, he's damaging the community. Didn't you just jump down my throat a few posts ago for daring to allege that you said he was damaging the community?
You said When did I say that? Can you only defeat somebody's argument if you intentionally misrepresent it? if I recall. Still having trouble keeping your story straight Kai?

Not to mention that the very use of that backstory implies a distinct lack of RP humility. Anybody that wants to be the protagonist of an MMORPG needs to reexamine his motivation before he gets involved in a roleplaying event, let alone tries to lead anybody else.

Whereas antagonists don't? I don't think anyone wants to be 'the' protagonist, *a* protagonist generally suffices. I think you are mistaking an attempt to be creative for a lack of humility. Its not like he made a race just for himself, he was part of a race on 2k1 that was recognized by other RPers.

Uh, actually I'm arguing against them all. Like, at the same time. Yeah. One of my many talents is that I can hold more than one opinion at once!

I never doubted your capacity to be opinionated, and I never said as such. However when you say are not arguing that gryffon is damaging the community when you are arguing just that among other opinons you hold, that is where I have a problem with it.


As I said, I'm not against new races per se. That doesn't mean I'm not against Gryffon's race or the fox guy's race or whatever. It means that, if done properly, the introduction of new races could be something I support. There is no contradiction here at all.

The contradictions are in that you flip flop around on the effects it has and whether Gryffon and Shawn are causing any problems or just the potential problems which just by 'random convergence' has not, depending on what you can and cannot defend any given moment.



The lack of regulation is a bad thing. It lets people get carried away with disruptive, egocentric roleplaying.

Certianly. However, it has never been an issue with player created races. Its worth noting that Shawn and Gryf have both contributed to roleplaying greatly on GK. Having roleplayed with Shawn quite a lot, he is definately not lacking in humility nor an attention seeker, and his character race has enriched the roleplaying community greatly. You are being uptight over a non-problem. And yes, you can say it 'could' have a non-immediate effect but man, how many years have to pass before you consider it demonstrated that it is harmless?

And Gryffon is setting a precedent. The dudes that want to be the Dark LizardMen of Al'Grat'Khur can point at him and say "hey, if he's allowed..."

Right, and we are powerless to say 'you know that really doesn't work' - as if some judge will rule that if gryf did something now we have to let dumb things happen too because they both involved a new race.

If the Lizard Men contribute, then it may be a good thing to add. If they are not, then no one will want to play with them and they can either leave when they get bored, RP outside the main community, or find something that integrates better. Relax already.


You stalwartly march into threads with pomp and pride and not the slightest idea about what your opponent is saying.

I always consider the other side of an argument, care to demonstrate where I don't?

When he refutes your claims you resort to attacking him on unrelated matters such as the color of his hat.

Again, example?

You make crafted assertions to support your case but refuse to back them up. You dismiss arguments, examples and analogies without even trying to prove them invalid.
I break down your arguments and refute them regularily, what arguments do you consider 'dismissed' in this case?

In the end, when everything is going wrong, you break out the psychoanalysis and attempt to blame the whole thing on the traumatising events of your opponent's ninth birthday.
I have made observations regarding your behavior, based on observations of your behavior. I never said you had to take any of my advice or tried to debate them until you accept them. Its your own loss if you can't benefit from some well thought out observations.

By this point, you've given up on debating and every post you make is a frantic, groundless insistence that you are right and your opponent is wrong. You are a terrible arguer.
And that is why I continue to make a series of points you still can't refute, and why I still point out where you are inconsistent in your arguments and flipflop around? Or where I make the case even clearer so you can actually understand it?


I know Gryf is a good roleplayer, and I have a lot of experience with shawn about his race and can attest, as can all of Dustari and most of the RP community I am sure, that his race and character have greatly improved GK and been a great compliment to roleplaying in kingdoms. If anyone was to 'deny' him the right to play that race on the basis that it was not done with 'formal sanctions' and risks causing future harm, I can assure you that the immediate harm done by reducing the quality that he brings to GK would be far far higher than anything that will ever come about by not having your preferred regulations in place.
What is worse, is you don't even play with these people, all you can do is state your claim that it is 'bad in theory' and that you have enough experience RPing in different situations for your opinions to be sound here too.

When I point out you have no idea how this specific community self regulates on issues like this, or how much shawn and gryf have added to GK, you feel totally justified in claiming that we are all so generic that the differences between our community and the ones you do frequent are no larger than if you do or do not roleplay in a purple hat.

If you cannot see that, you are not going to, and its only because you don't want to.

Kaimetsu
03-24-2005, 01:14 PM
I'm sorry, did I miss something? Am I the fellow that starting whining about Gryf baselessly?

You would be the hypocrite that started whining about me baselessly, and then espoused a philosophy of non-intervention that you clearly don't follow.

since you like to play both debator and moderator I suppose that means I am always wrong

Haha, man, do you even read your own posts?

Yet, his character was started way back on 2k1

Yes. So? I'm expected to forgive him because he's been doing this for a while?

Neither of us can measure the effect that a single person has. It's utterly impossible. How can you realistically say that Gryffon's poor roleplaying practices haven't had a negative influence on other people?

Do you have have some special insight to share on how it is actually relevant or will you just choose not to quote and respond to this part?

Pretty interesting accusation, coming from you. You've made posts in this threads that don't quote anything I've written, or quote only a single paragraph. I don't think you can suggest that I do the same without giving us an example, especially since I have kind of a reputation for doing the opposite.

Interesting, what would you consider to be within the realm of possibility that would result in you loosing a debate?

Huh? Where did this come from?

That is a great example of irresponsible behavior, and I would be greviously in error if I was to endorse that sort of conduct, however you could not have selected a more extreeme and poor example

And, true to form, that's all you say. No explanation of how the two situations are incongruent, no logical analyses, no highlighted errors. Just a hefty "YOUR EXAMPLE SUCKS".

I wouldn't doubt it if he's rethinking the quality of that story

Well, he hasn't posted anything new. If he'd designed a new backstory, wouldn't he have amended his thread by now?

Was he ever forced to change it? That's the kind of regulation I'm talking about.

but regardless I am sure the subsequent posts to that story would not encourage the 'rampant' use of obscure races

Precisely three people objected to his story. Only one of them actually plays GK on a regular basis. I do not think this supports your point.

Right, he's damaging the community. Didn't you just jump down my throat a few posts ago for daring to allege that you said he was damaging the community?

Carefully consider the following strings of characters:

"contributing to a disruptive tendency"
"damaging the server"

The words are not the same. They are different words. It is prudent at this point to consider whether the meanings might be different, too!

To argue or deny that he is actively damaging the server would take statistics that neither of us can produce without travelling into parallel dimensions with comprehensive surveys. Special effects, wacky hijinks, I know. It'd be awesome. But it's beyond our means.

What I can say is that his actions have a distinct potential for breaking cohesion on the server. That's it. Is he harming it? Probably, yes. But I won't assert that he definitely is because I don't have the wormhole generator. Same as I won't assert that firing my revolver is the same as killing somebody.

Whereas antagonists don't? I don't think anyone wants to be 'the' protagonist

Do you think that those are the only two options? Protagonist and antagonist? This says more about you than it does about Gryffon.
Judging by the elaborate nature of his backstory - the brotherly conflicts, the torturous past, the redemption, the transformation, etc - it seems to me that he very much wants to be the protagonist. It's the kind of character you might write a book about. It's not the kind of character you should play in an MMORPG.


I never doubted your capacity to be opinionated, and I never said as such. However when you say are not arguing that gryffon is damaging the community when you are arguing just that among other opinons you hold, that is where I have a problem with it

I have already dismissed this misconception in this post (and my previous few, too). If you are still confused, ask a dictionary for the difference between 'potentiality' and 'actuality'.

The contradictions are in that you flip flop around on the effects it has and whether Gryffon and Shawn are causing any problems

No, you are merely twisting my words to make them seem disharmonious. But whatever, I've already covered that above.

Incidentally, I don't particularly object to Shawn's character concept and I don't think I ever said otherwise. He may have invented a new race, but he did it in a humble, reasonable manner. Being a fox-person isn't particularly glamorous.

Certianly. However, it has never been an issue with player created races

Assertion.

Right, and we are powerless to say 'you know that really doesn't work' - as if some judge will rule that if gryf did something now we have to let dumb things happen too because they both involved a new race

Well, yeah. Because there aren't any active judges and there isn't any real regulation. You make the insane assumption that kingdoms are led and populated by reasonable people. If that were the case, what would be the source of all those problems you earlier refused to name?

I always consider the other side of an argument, care to demonstrate where I don't?

The whole thread, basically. Even now you're missing the point, which just strengthens my accusation. You gave a tirade of unsupported insults and assertions about my actions in the thread. I immediately gave an equivalent, to demonstrate that such tactics don't prove anything; they work equally well for either party. Evidently this lesson flew straight over your head, for now you are back to demand that I provide proof where you did not!

I break down your arguments and refute them regularily

No! I break down your arguments and refute them super-regularly!!

PLEASE tell me you are learning!

I know Gryf is a good roleplayer, and I have a lot of experience with shawn about his race and can attest, as can all of Dustari and most of the RP community I am sure, that his race and character have greatly improved GK and been a great compliment to roleplaying in kingdoms

As was already said, I don't particularly oppose Shawn's choice of race. But that's all besides the point. Would Gryffon cease to be a "good roleplayer" if he made a less self-indulgent character?

you feel totally justified in claiming that we are all so generic that the differences between our community and the ones you do frequent are no larger than if you do or do not roleplay in a purple hat

Wow, maybe you have been listening! But here's the second half of that synopsis: You haven't yet shown that I'm wrong.

Humans are humans. There are universal factors - rules that apply regardless of the minute specifics of the group. The fact is that egocentric roleplaying is as bad in your world as it is in mine, and claiming refuge because of some irrelevant distinctions is no less ridiculous than dismissing somebody's opinion based on their preference of hat.

GoZelda
03-24-2005, 03:02 PM
I wasn't talking to you.
That doesn't exclude him from replying to it - that's what's so great about these message boards. If you didn't want anyone else to reply to it there are such great programs as AIM, and always the option of e-mail and private messages.

busyrobot
03-25-2005, 06:35 AM
I'll try to cut as much loose stuff and find a few things that you say that are at least marginally on topic:

Neither of us can measure the effect that a single person has. It's utterly impossible. How can you realistically say that Gryffon's poor roleplaying practices haven't had a negative influence on other people?

If you can't measure any ill effect and all you have to go on is that it could cause ill effects? The 'Oh the Universe is Chaos!' defense is exceptionally weak, we are talking about observable impacts of people's characters and the rules people play by. You want to start making rules without any observations - just your own personal theories - to back them up?
You are the one who is trying to establish some evidence for your theory, and if the best you can do is say I can't 'prove' your theory is wrong, then you don't have a case to demonstrate your theory is sound at all.

Well, he hasn't posted anything new. If he'd designed a new backstory, wouldn't he have amended his thread by now?

Was he ever forced to change it? That's the kind of regulation I'm talking about.

You asserted it will likely lead to a rash of people doing this, and so far you have only seen one example, and that one person did not receive encouraging praise for those elements of his story, thus showing it is not encouraged.



To argue or deny that he is actively damaging the server would take statistics that neither of us can produce without travelling into parallel dimensions with comprehensive surveys. Special effects, wacky hijinks, I know. It'd be awesome. But it's beyond our means.

But even then we could never KNOW if the statistics were sound or if it was a HUGE event of random convergence! (since you like the 'we can never know stuff' defense so much)

What I can say is that his actions have a distinct potential for breaking cohesion on the server. That's it. Is he harming it? Probably, yes. But I won't assert that he definitely is because I don't have the wormhole generator. Same as I won't assert that firing my revolver is the same as killing somebody.

Making rules based soley on one person's theories also threaten to break the cohesion of a server. The question is, what is a likely to be dangerous threat? The server has not suffered for the presence of Shawn or Gryffon over the last several years, and has benefited from them.


Wow, maybe you have been listening! But here's the second half of that synopsis: You haven't yet shown that I'm wrong.

Humans are humans. There are universal factors - rules that apply regardless of the minute specifics of the group. The fact is that egocentric roleplaying is as bad in your world as it is in mine, and claiming refuge because of some irrelevant distinctions is no less ridiculous than dismissing somebody's opinion based on their preference of hat.

You haven't shown you are right either...you are the one trying demonstrate a need for change here.

1) I agree with your synopsis in its general principle. What I disagree with, is your quick judgement about Gryffon being an egocentric roleplayer. He does not use his history to try to draw attention to himself, and has specifically avoided 'center of attention' positions in the past.

2) Your opinion was 'dismissed' because it held at its center a missconception of how this community self regulates that you obviously didn't have experience with.
See, your error was the reason your opinion was dismissed, which was then attributed (understandably) to your lack of involvement with the community.
There are issues in GK: No one knows how to have a war, some leaders think bugging ships is 'roleplaying' or at least have in the past, some leaders did not stop their members from PKing and disrupting RP events...there are numerous ones.
However, in this community, the persistant problems have to do with kingdom leaders that do not encourage roleplaying, not ones that encourage grand RP histories. People who DO want to RP, do so in the decent kingdoms, and really do want to be part of those communities, to the point that, they would want an RP history that works with the group, not against it.

These are factors that do not appear to be (based on your misconceptions here) a part of the communities you are involved in, and as such, they are factors of experience that made you ineffective in your assesment. Your hat analogy is totally off, because it assumes you are being dismissed for completely arbitrary reasons. You may contend the reasons you are being dismissed are not very compelling, but it does not mean they are arbitrary, so your analogy is at best, still a very bad choice.

Inspiration
03-25-2005, 07:44 AM
If someone with a contagious virus walks through a crowded area, you can not say for sure if or if not anyone will contract this virus.

If or if not anyone does, the fact that this person has walked through the area makes the chances far greater that another will catch it, and spread it to even more people, than if that person had never walked through the area.

Kaimetsu
03-25-2005, 08:06 AM
I'll try to cut as much loose stuff and find a few things that you say that are at least marginally on topic

I hope you will not object if I do the same.

If you can't measure any ill effect and all you have to go on is that it could cause ill effects? The 'Oh the Universe is Chaos!' defense is exceptionally weak, we are talking about observable impacts of people's characters and the rules people play by

How would you suggest that we measure an individual's contribution to a trend? I mean, hell, I'll even let you assume that we can read minds. We still can't tell what factors combined to produce a given attitude - most people don't keep a conscious record of the things that influenced them.

You want to start making rules without any observations

Greenhouse effect: Good or bad? See, it's pretty difficult to prove that our pollution has a significant effect on the atmosphere because we can't easily make comparisons. We don't have a handy alternate universe where we didn't pollute our planet. The best we can do, pretty much, is to ask ourselves "Hey, what do we think's gonna happen if we send all those chemicals up there?"

Same applies here. We can deduce the effect of certain factors by employing a rudimentary understanding of human psychology. More on this below.

You asserted it will likely lead to a rash of people doing this, and so far you have only seen one example

I don't think I made such a strong assertion. Nor have I given you reason to believe that I've only seen one example. I gave you a recent one because it was convenient, but it wasn't really necessary.

Y'see, you're not getting the burden of proof thing here. I say that certain actions have certain effects on the mass consciousness. You say that they don't. There's no way for either of us to actually prove our case because we don't have access to the relevant information. But that doesn't mean we should dismiss each other without consideration. Failure to provide proof isn't a comment on the strength of our stances, but rather on their fundamental nature. I can't directly prove that humankind has damaged the ozone layer, but I can talk about chemistry and geology and show, through abstract reasoning, that it probably has.

that one person did not receive encouraging praise for those elements of his story, thus showing it is not encouraged

Nobody ever said that it was verbally encouraged. You can encourage somebody in more ways than just saying "HEY GOOD JOB".

Making rules based soley on one person's theories also threaten to break the cohesion of a server

What are the options here? On what bases can we actually make rulings? We can make predictions about the effect that they'll have or we can roll a die and hope for the best. Personally, I prefer the former.

The server has not suffered for the presence of Shawn or Gryffon over the last several years

Dude, you can't use X as a corrolary in proving X. If you make such definitive assertions about the history of the server, you have to be prepared to support them. That's how the burden of proof works. My claim is more general and, as such, doesn't require such direct proofs. I'm suggesting that Gryffon has damaged the server, but that's as a consequence of my actual argument: That use of egocentric character designs - especially by high-ranking players - has a negative influence on other people. It's an inductive argument; we work from some known facts and we extrapolate according to some generalised reasoning.

Now, you can criticise that reasoning but you cannot dismiss it simply by asserting that its implications haven't been met. You have no way to support that claim.

I agree with your synopsis in its general principle. What I disagree with, is your quick judgement about Gryffon being an egocentric roleplayer

Well, I guess that's a subjective thing. I would suspect that your judgement is tainted in this matter - that you are supporting Gryffon for political or emotional reasons - but who can say for sure? None of us can judge this objectively. We're pretty much forced to let the audience decide for themselves.

One fact I will mention is that the only two impartial judges here (myself and Sildae) voted against Gryffon's character concept. While that's certainly not enough for us to automatically reject it, it does show that the attitude isn't unique to any one person. I do not think you are justified in dismissing it as a "quick judgement".

Your opinion was 'dismissed' because it held at its center a missconception of how this community self regulates

For the record, you have not given me a single example of forceful regulation. Everything you've said on the matter depends on an assumption that Graal's roleplayers are reasonable people.

There are issues in GK: No one knows how to have a war

AKA: Nobody agrees with your opinions on how a war should be fought.

some leaders think bugging ships is 'roleplaying' or at least have in the past

AKA: Some leaders disagree with your opinion on the acceptability of bugging ships.

some leaders did not stop their members from PKing and disrupting RP events...

AKA: etc, etc.

However, in this community, the persistant problems have to do with kingdom leaders that do not encourage roleplaying

Above, you said that some interpret "bugging" ships as an example of roleplaying. Who are you to say that it is not?

People who DO want to RP, do so in the decent kingdoms, and really do want to be part of those communities

Which are the "decent kingdoms"?

These are factors that do not appear to be (based on your misconceptions here) a part of the communities you are involved in, and as such, they are factors of experience that made you ineffective in your assesment. Your hat analogy is totally off, because it assumes you are being dismissed for completely arbitrary reasons

No. I will explain it again. The hat example is a means of showing that there exist absolutes, common between roleplaying experiences. The fact is that your entire argument in the above paragraph could instantly be modified like so: "Wearing a purple hat is a factor that does not appear to be (based on your misconceptions here) a part of the communities you are involved in, and as such, it is a factor of experience that made you ineffective in your assesment". Would this version be equally convincing?

Yes, inexperience within specific settings can inhibit empathy, yadda yadda. But you have not shown that the specific differences in this case are any more significant than my choice of headgear. You have done nothing but assert that they are. Why should those differences modify the applicability of general roleplaying rules?

On a less serious note, I really need to convince some GK admin to make a Huge Purple Hat item for me to wear, so I can make my character run around belittling people for their inability to empathise with him :D

Kaimetsu
03-25-2005, 08:11 AM
If someone with a contagious virus walks through a crowded area, you can not say for sure if or if not anyone will contract this virus

Yeah, exactly. Even if they don't, it could erode their immune systems to a point where something else does get them. There's no way for us to measure the actual effect the person had, but we can most definitely speculate on the probable consequences, and suggest suitable means for avoiding them.

GryffonDurime
03-26-2005, 05:49 PM
Impartial?

You?

Kaimestu Impartial?

You, who barraged this thread with an opinionated blitzkreig of concoluted logic?

C'est le fin.

Sildae
03-26-2005, 06:47 PM
Impartial?

You?

Kaimestu Impartial?

You, who barraged this thread with an opinionated blitzkreig of concoluted logic?

C'est le fin.
Uhm, I am the opinionated gal. Kai is the one who came up with all the annoying logic that made me back off in the first place.

Moonite
03-26-2005, 07:13 PM
.ces le cret'rs bleha nub.

GoZelda
03-26-2005, 07:34 PM
.ces le cret'rs bleha nub.
And yet another intelligent remark from Moonite!

Kaimetsu
03-26-2005, 07:55 PM
You, who barraged this thread with an opinionated blitzkreig of concoluted logic?

There is a difference between being impartial and having no opinion. I suggest that you learn it before attempting to argue on this subject.

busyrobot
03-27-2005, 05:21 AM
I was going to let the thread die but oh well.

How would you suggest that we measure an individual's contribution to a trend? I mean, hell, I'll even let you assume that we can read minds. We still can't tell what factors combined to produce a given attitude - most people don't keep a conscious record of the things that influenced them.

Trick is to first identify problems and track them back to the causes. So far you are only talking about possible problems that may be, in theory caused by what you see are potential problems.
I am curious if you are so quick to give up on assessing the effects of people when it comes to irl politics, or if you are just doing that here because it serves you.


Greenhouse effect: Good or bad? See, it's pretty difficult to prove that our pollution has a significant effect on the atmosphere because we can't easily make comparisons. We don't have a handy alternate universe where we didn't pollute our planet. The best we can do, pretty much, is to ask ourselves "Hey, what do we think's gonna happen if we send all those chemicals up there?"

Same applies here. We can deduce the effect of certain factors by employing a rudimentary understanding of human psychology. More on this below.

Keyword 'Effect' meaning, something observed traced back to probable causes. When it comes to green house theory, the science is based on a long standing observations of chemists under controlled experimental conditions. I doubt you honestly think you can equate some of your 'ponderings' on the possible effects of certian character types on roleplaying to centuries of empirical data collected by professional chemists conducting experiments.


I don't think I made such a strong assertion. Nor have I given you reason to believe that I've only seen one example. I gave you a recent one because it was convenient, but it wasn't really necessary.


So you think you can provide only a single instance, then act like I am out of line for not assuming you have tons of more instances to back up your case?

Small thing about debates: If you need to strengthen your case, strengthen it, don't just ellude that you 'never said' that was all you had to support your case and assume that somehow does the trick.

And about your assertion - yes, you said the danger was that anyone could make up any old race....how is that a danger if people don't start making up races? If there is no rash of races - what is your problem with it then? What are you worried will happen?


Y'see, you're not getting the burden of proof thing here. I say that certain actions have certain effects on the mass consciousness. You say that they don't. There's no way for either of us to actually prove our case because we don't have access to the relevant information. But that doesn't mean we should dismiss each other without consideration. Failure to provide proof isn't a comment on the strength of our stances, but rather on their fundamental nature. I can't directly prove that humankind has damaged the ozone layer, but I can talk about chemistry and geology and show, through abstract reasoning, that it probably has.

I will admit I was playing with you a bit, because you have tried to shift the burden of proof on to me so many times I thought it would be interesting to see how you respond to the same. Now that we can get past the "can't even prove this isn't aaaaaallll a dream" stuff can you demonstrate reasonably the risks you are concerned of? I will reiterate my key point (1) that even though people can make characters that are 'out there' that it rarely happens, and when it does its generally short lived as it is not conducive to roleplaying within any of the groups that do RP, and that is why people make characters in the first place. The fact that negative problems associated with 'out there' characters are few and far between over the years of roleplaying on this server suggests I am correct in this assesment.


Nobody ever said that it was verbally encouraged. You can encourage somebody in more ways than just saying "HEY GOOD JOB".


Yet he did have verbal discouragement. What do you think is stronger, verbal en/discouragement or the 'more ways' (ones I hope you demonstrate are not purely theoretical but have actual examples) as you put it?



What are the options here? On what bases can we actually make rulings? We can make predictions about the effect that they'll have or we can roll a die and hope for the best. Personally, I prefer the former.

Rules have their place but there is also room for self regulation where it has worked to date. This is not a 'doomsday' issue like the green house effect is (the reason you choose it I am sure) because if there is a problem, we can actually solve it then with minimal effort, or at least no more than would be needed to try to prevent the 'potential' problem that has not manifested in all the years of this server.

busyrobot
03-27-2005, 05:22 AM
(part 2)

Dude, you can't use X as a corrolary in proving X. If you make such definitive assertions about the history of the server, you have to be prepared to support them. That's how the burden of proof works. My claim is more general and, as such, doesn't require such direct proofs. I'm suggesting that Gryffon has damaged the server, but that's as a consequence of my actual argument: That use of egocentric character designs - especially by high-ranking players - has a negative influence on other people. It's an inductive argument; we work from some known facts and we extrapolate according to some generalised reasoning.


Now, you can criticise that reasoning but you cannot dismiss it simply by asserting that its implications haven't been met. You have no way to support that claim.


You want me to prove the absense of something to disprove your case? How about if you want to contend there are problems caused by shawn and gryffon then you provide instances to support those claims?

Until you show evidence of a problem, I see no problem. Until you show evidence of bigfoot, I see no bigfoot. Get the trend? Yes - you have provided a theory of how problems are liable to come up, and I have provided a similar theory that demonstrates flaws in your theory.
A first glance look at the server shows the problems you are worried about are not there, unless you provide contrary details, that is how I intend to leave that observation.

I assume you consider 'That use of egocentric character designs - especially by high-ranking players - has a negative influence on other people.' your 'known fact' in this case.

Gryf's use of his character's history is not for egocentric purposes, if anything, its a basis to evaluate his character's appropriate emotional responses to situtions. You may feel that is not the best means to achieve this and I'd agree, but I will say its not for egocentric reasons.

Another factor, is can you seperate a negative influence and a negative effect? Even on the 'influence' level, given that people who make elaborate backstories -including gryf- tend to be singled out for negative commentary, why do you think that simple exposure to a person with such a backstory will result in influence people towards doing the same? Any influence towards making such a backstory is more than countered by the community's general stance towards the topic.

Well, I guess that's a subjective thing. I would suspect that your judgement is tainted in this matter - that you are supporting Gryffon for political or emotional reasons - but who can say for sure? None of us can judge this objectively. We're pretty much forced to let the audience decide for themselves.

I think the audience has, for the most part, given up about 2-3 pages of posts ago. If you want to claim that the key elements are too subjective for us to discuss, then I don't see the point of discussing it.


At least you acknowledge you are not impartial.

One fact I will mention is that the only two impartial judges here (myself and Sildae) voted against Gryffon's character concept.

.....sigh...you do realize you just contradicted yourself just one sentence above?

While that's certainly not enough for us to automatically reject it, it does show that the attitude isn't unique to any one person. I do not think you are justified in dismissing it as a "quick judgement".

I never said it was. I argue though, that without some evidence to back up your theories that there is harm (not proof, but evidence) I would say your theories are not panning out. I have already offered explinations as to why your theories are not panning out.

For the record, you have not given me a single example of forceful regulation.

And as I have argued we don't need forceful regulation on this topic, this is bad how?

Everything you've said on the matter depends on an assumption that Graal's roleplayers are reasonable people.

Reasonable enough. If they weren't, how would rules help? Have you ever seen unreasonable people try to make reasonable rules? Or enforce them? Your solution does not work for unreasonable people anymore than the social dynamics that I have said already has kept this server from experiencing the problems you say could but have not happened.


AKA: Nobody agrees with your opinions on how a war should be fought.

You assume too much: I have no idea how wars should be fought. I have asked that question on this server, yet no one has any ideas how wars should be fought. That is generally why people feel there are no wars, and why I say its a problem.


AKA: Some leaders disagree with your opinion on the acceptability of bugging ships.

Wrong, AKA the leaders of the other kingdoms, as least Zormite and Dustari for sure and I believe its supported by Forest (is it gryf?) is that to drop items in the water or use spells to create items to trap and damage ships is bug abuse, yet it was allowed for a time by the leader of CP.


AKA: etc, etc.

etc, etc.

Above, you said that some interpret "bugging" ships as an example of roleplaying. Who are you to say that it is not?

I am not anyone to say as such, other than at least 2 if not 3-4 of the other kingdoms condemned the practice. Its an example of where RP standards or lack thereof between kingdoms caused strife. You wanted examples of other problems, not for me to make the claim that I was part of them or of the victorious side.


Which are the "decent kingdoms"?

Any kingdom that RPs and makes an effort to keep their practices similar enough to those of other kingdoms that rp to be able to rp together.


No. I will explain it again. The hat example is a means of showing that there exist absolutes, common between roleplaying experiences. The fact is that your entire argument in the above paragraph could instantly be modified like so: "Wearing a purple hat is a factor that does not appear to be (based on your misconceptions here) a part of the communities you are involved in, and as such, it is a factor of experience that made you ineffective in your assesment". Would this version be equally convincing?

Can you clarify what you mean by 'absolutes' in this case? All that it sounds like to me is, if you were to argue about buildings being overdesigned in LA because you were an engineer from Kansas, and someone said "no but you don't have earthquakes in Kansas and thats why you think they are overengineered here" that you would retort with "Well that would be like you coming to Kansas and saying your opinions are invalid because you are an engineer from a state with a name that starts with a 'C' instead of a 'K' and thus you have no experience with engineering in a state that starts with a 'K'."

Does that clear it up a bit?


Yes, inexperience within specific settings can inhibit empathy, yadda yadda. But you have not shown that the specific differences in this case are any more significant than my choice of headgear. You have done nothing but assert that they are. Why should those differences modify the applicability of general roleplaying rules?

Yes I have, there is a self regulation process based on the social dynamics present in GK. That and by your theory we only have not gotten into grevious trouble due to random convegence, which is far less likely than the reason I mentioned.


On a less serious note, I really need to convince some GK admin to make a Huge Purple Hat item for me to wear, so I can make my character run around belittling people for their inability to empathise with him :D

No comment, lol

Kaimetsu
03-27-2005, 06:10 AM
Trick is to first identify problems and track them back to the causes

And how can you say that things wouldn't be significantly better if a certain factor were removed? How can you say that certain problems would still have occured? These things aren't always obvious, much like the ozone layer thing.

I am curious if you are so quick to give up on assessing the effects of people when it comes to irl politics

Give me an example.

Keyword 'Effect' meaning, something observed traced back to probable causes. When it comes to green house theory, the science is based on a long standing observations of chemists under controlled experimental conditions

First you argued that I cannot possibly make my argument without providing direct evidence of the phenomenon I describe. Are you now rescinding that, but criticising the inductive logic? I need to know where we stand here.

So you think you can provide only a single instance, then act like I am out of line for not assuming you have tons of more instances to back up your case?

I don't think that's what I said. I think you're being irrational for going to the other extreme - assuming that I haven't seen anything else. Stop strawmanning.

And about your assertion - yes, you said the danger was that anyone could make up any old race....how is that a danger if people don't start making up races?

That's one danger. But it's just a symptom of a wider problem - an egocentric attitude to roleplaying. That's what Gryffon encourages and condones.

Please stop trying to break my argument into itty bitty pieces. Tackle the whole or nothing at all.

I will admit I was playing with you a bit

Doubtful. Seems more likely that you just don't understand burdens of proof.

because you have tried to shift the burden of proof on to me so many times

When have I asked you to prove a claim that you haven't made?

can you demonstrate reasonably the risks you are concerned of?

Seeing a kingdom leader roleplay in an egocentric fashion encourages players to do likewise. That's it. That's my whole argument. Inventing races is just one possible expression of it.

I will reiterate my key point (1) that even though people can make characters that are 'out there' that it rarely happens

Well, I guess that depends. If you approve of Gryffon's backstory then you must have some pretty loose standards.

And again: If you make that claim, you must support it. That, or leave it for the audience to assess for themselves. Make a choice and then stick with it. Repeated assertions don't qualify as either.

Yet he did have verbal discouragement

Stop changing the argument. You said: "that one person did not receive encouraging praise for those elements of his story, thus showing it is not encouraged". Do you now admit that praise is not the only way to encourage somebody?

Rules have their place but there is also room for self regulation where it has worked to date

Again, evading the point. "Making rules based soley on one person's theories also threaten to break the cohesion of a server". Do you now admit that predictions are a good basis for making rulings, compared to choosing a policy at random?

This is not a 'doomsday' issue like the green house effect is [...] because if there is a problem, we can actually solve it then with minimal effort

Yeah, we just break out the mind control rods.

Kaimetsu
03-27-2005, 06:36 AM
You want me to prove the absense of something to disprove your case?

No, I want you to try and fault the inductive logic. I already explained this. Go read up on induction, damnit.


Gryf's use of his character's history is not for egocentric purposes

I disagree. I interpret it as an elaborate, dramatic backstory designed to make him feel special. There are plenty of more mundane ways to achieve a similar personality.

Another factor, is can you seperate a negative influence and a negative effect?
[...]
people who make elaborate backstories -including gryf- tend to be singled out for negative commentary

They do? Other than the two already discussed here, do you have any examples?

I think the audience has, for the most part, given up about 2-3 pages of posts ago

Yeah, probably. But the rules of the game don't change.

.....sigh...you do realize you just contradicted yourself just one sentence above?

Do you realise that 'impartial' is not the same as 'objective'? Please try to keep a dictionary on hand while engaging in this debate.

And as I have argued we don't need forceful regulation on this topic, this is bad how?

Well, the only other type of regulation is wholly ineffectual unless you make the assumption that all Kingdoms players are reasonable, mature people. I do not think that assumption pans out.

That Raziel guy has ostensibly been using his backstory for some time. How has your non-regulation helped there?

Reasonable enough. If they weren't, how would rules help?

If a kingdom leader has to approve stories then you have two minds assessing them, and more chance that a vainglorious character concept will be rejected. It could even be possible to appoint an overall authority to arbitrate on these kinds of matters. It still assumes that some people are reasonable but, even if the leaders and staff members are all as incompetent as the average player, it still adds layers of redundancy.

the leaders of the other kingdoms, as least Zormite and Dustari for sure and I believe its supported by Forest (is it gryf?) is that to drop items in the water or use spells to create items to trap and damage ships is bug abuse, yet it was allowed for a time by the leader of CP

Right. So why are you placing the fault with CP and not the other kingdoms? Because of your opinion. Who are you to say what is and isn't good roleplaying?

I am not anyone to say as such, other than at least 2 if not 3-4 of the other kingdoms condemned the practice

Yeah? So? You still place the blame on those that didn't.

Any kingdom that RPs and makes an effort to keep their practices similar enough to those of other kingdoms that rp to be able to rp together

Which are the "decent kingdoms"?

Can you clarify what you mean by 'absolutes' in this case?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=absolute

All that it sounds like to me is, if you were to argue about buildings being overdesigned in[...]

...Town A, and you were arguing with an engineer from Town B, and he said "Look, guys, I like the style and all but is the huge carbon fibre hat actually better at preventing leaks than a normal roof?" that you would retort with "Hey, your opinions are invalid. You can't know how water behaves in this town - not until you've spoken with Mrs Peterson and Mr Jameson and the Johnsons and all the other residents! Get the hell out!"

Does that clear it up a bit?

busyrobot
03-27-2005, 08:21 AM
And how can you say that things wouldn't be significantly better if a certain factor were removed? How can you say that certain problems would still have occured? These things aren't always obvious, much like the ozone layer thing.

That is a huge generalization. If by 'a' certain factor you meant posting know-it-alls and by 'things' you meant the forums then sure, I could agree with you. There are tons of 'things' and tons of 'factors' so whether 'things' would be significantly better or not kinda depends on the 'factors' and 'things' in question.

Give me an example.

Poltician nukes the capitol and chaos ensues. Can you track cause and effect in that case?

First you argued that I cannot possibly make my argument without providing direct evidence of the phenomenon I describe. Are you now rescinding that, but criticising the inductive logic? I need to know where we stand here.
I am saying when taking drastic enough action as to limit what people can and can not do via a governing body that you need to have some level of evidence to support the need. I am also questioning the inductive logic in your assertions.
I don't think that's what I said. I think you're being irrational for going to the other extreme - assuming that I haven't seen anything else. Stop strawmanning.
I am not strawmanning I am asking you to provide more examples that you feel support your convictions instead of just saying you could know of more examples than you have mentioned.
That's one danger. But it's just a symptom of a wider problem - an egocentric attitude to roleplaying. That's what Gryffon encourages and condones.
Can you outline the dangers you are asserting are a problem so then perhaps, at this late point, we can actually debate if they are well founded or not? I am attacking your assertions as to the risk of that one danger you outlined because it is all you have mentioned so far. How can you say 'there are more' with any weight if you won't offer them for evaluation?

Please stop trying to break my argument into itty bitty pieces. Tackle the whole or nothing at all.

Its the only substantive risk you have mentioned as a basis for your concern - its perfectly valid for me to point out its an ill founded one.

Doubtful. Seems more likely that you just don't understand burdens of proof.

When have I asked you to prove a claim that you haven't made?

We are not talking about proving proof for claims not made, we are talking about your requests that I prove that there is an absense of proof that your points are wrong, as if your arugments have an intristic authenticity about them.

Seeing a kingdom leader roleplay in an egocentric fashion encourages players to do likewise. That's it. That's my whole argument. Inventing races is just one possible expression of it.

Yet you have not seen him roleplay, and are assuming he is an egocentric roleplayer because of his background story. Yet I have personal experience with seening him roleplay and roleplaying with him. But should I assume that difference between us is really no larger than if say, if I had but you had not roleplayed in a large purple hat?
Well, I guess that depends. If you approve of Gryffon's backstory then you must have some pretty loose standards.

I approve of how he has roleplayed to date with that backstory, and I don't think that is the result of loose standards.

And again: If you make that claim, you must support it. That, or leave it for the audience to assess for themselves. Make a choice and then stick with it. Repeated assertions don't qualify as either.
I support that just because people can does not mean they do, and that in this regard the community is self managing.
Stop changing the argument. You said: "that one person did not receive encouraging praise for those elements of his story, thus showing it is not encouraged". Do you now admit that praise is not the only way to encourage somebody?When the heck did I ever say praise was the only way to encourage somebody? All I was saying is the sum effect between encouragement vs discouragement leans very heavily towards the discouragement end, and that anyone who mistakes Gryf's backstory as an encouragement to make a similar backstory, would be more than disuaded by the amount of discouragement.
Again, evading the point. "Making rules based soley on one person's theories also threaten to break the cohesion of a server". Do you now admit that predictions are a good basis for making rulings, compared to choosing a policy at random?
Who has endorsed policy at random? I know I haven't. When rules are being made already based on concrete needs allowing predictions - at least well reasoned and generally scientifically backed ones - to shape them is fine by me. But as a general rule an unsubstantiated prediction is not a good reason to make a rule where one has never been needed.

Yeah, we just break out the mind control rods.
All it would take is for kingdom leaders to say "you know this has gotten to be a problem we need to rethink this now" and we could leave the mind control rods at home.

Kaimetsu
03-27-2005, 08:51 AM
That is a huge generalization

No, it's an explanation of the nature of the universe. Billions of variables, too many for you or I to process. When dealing with collective consciousness, it's utterly impossible to reliably track causality.

Poltician nukes the capitol and chaos ensues. Can you track cause and effect in that case?

Yes.

Butterfly flaps wings, hurricane brews in south Atlantic. Can you track cause and effect in that case?

Believe it or not, giving one example of a possible thing does not mean that all similar things are possible.

I am saying when taking drastic enough action as to limit what people can and can not do via a governing body that you need to have some level of evidence to support the need

Which is where the inductive logic comes in. If it is sound, there is no need for direct observations.

I am also questioning the inductive logic in your assertions

Right. So a simple 'yes' would have sufficed.

I am not strawmanning

You intentionally misrepresent my position. I say that you have no reason to believe ¬X. You say that I'm accusing you of being "out of line" for not assuming X. These are completely different things.

Can you outline the dangers you are asserting are a problem so then perhaps, at this late point, we can actually debate if they are well founded or not?

Already tackled this, man. Induction. The only reasonable way for you to argue is to analyse the logic.

We are not talking about proving proof for claims not made, we are talking about your requests that I prove that there is an absense of proof that your points are wrong

You make assertions about the game world. Their relation to my predictions does not define them. You say that the world is in a certain state, but you don't offer to prove it. What value can I give this claim, then? If you base your argument on it then your argument is void.

I, meanwhile, base my argument on generalised reasoning about human nature. It is not specific to any single gameworld.

Yet you have not seen him roleplay, and are assuming he is an egocentric roleplayer because of his background story

I have seen him create an egocentric backstory. Does this not qualify as roleplaying?

I support that just because people can does not mean they do, and that in this regard the community is self managing

I don't think that sentence makes sense. In any case, it is certainly not a proof of your claim about the events on GK.

When the heck did I ever say praise was the only way to encourage somebody?

You argued that ¬praised(x) -> ¬encouraged(x).

All I was saying is the sum effect between encouragement vs discouragement leans very heavily towards the discouragement end

We saw an example of one person with a ridiculously egocentric story, and only one GK player reprimanded him for it. How many GK players posted in that thread without doing the same? And would he have been reprimanded if his story were slightly less grandiose?

Who has endorsed policy at random?

Well, you have argued against making policies based on theory. What else is there?

All it would take is for kingdom leaders to say "you know this has gotten to be a problem we need to rethink this now" and we could leave the mind control rods at home

Because, what, the act of five people thinking about something has the power to instantly rewrite the attitudes of everybody on the server?

busyrobot
03-27-2005, 09:04 AM
No, I want you to try and fault the inductive logic. I already explained this. Go read up on induction, damnit.

Even inductive logic requires limited observations to back it up, what observations do you feel back up your assertions in this case? You have asserted a need for rules to counter negative effects of people being able to write their own backstories without rules. You cited the demon fellow thread, though there was clear disproval of that and I doubt he will be up playing backstory anytime soon in any rping - and all done without the rules you feel we need to adopt to police this. Then there is Shawn, though his backstory has only led to enchancing the roleplaying of GK (I press you to find one person that disapproves of Shawn, he is an all around liked and good guy who roleplays his character very well), then there is Gryf, whom you assert supports egocentric 'bad' backstories. He however, arrived at his backstory when an entire new race was added to 2k1, a long time ago, with another group of roleplayers, which was recognized at the time by at least one existing kingdom leader. In that time, these are really the only cases I am aware of. If you have more observations as the basis for your argument, provide them.

When it comes to unsual backstories, a few rare instances of unlikely stories is not bad, when the unlikely stories become common to the point of being more likely and becomes tired, its an issue.

So far when I point out that no one wants a backstory people find tired and problematic, you seem to say I am assuming people here are reasonable. I would say that the observations to date support that they are, as these problems have not arisen in any number that would cause disruption.

I disagree. I interpret it as an elaborate, dramatic backstory designed to make him feel special. There are plenty of more mundane ways to achieve a similar personality.

You are talking to people who have a lot more experience with him to deduce his motives from than just reading one backstory. You may as well be claiming that gryffon is a cruel person based on a hand writting analysis, and expecting to convince people who have day to day experiences with the fellow.

They do? Other than the two already discussed here, do you have any examples?
Um.....are there even any more examples of people with 'whacky backstories' to use as examples? That actually made me laugh when I read it.

Yeah, probably. But the rules of the game don't change.
Just making an observation.
Do you realise that 'impartial' is not the same as 'objective'? Please try to keep a dictionary on hand while engaging in this debate.I knew that would be your argument and I would ask you to point out the subtle differences of nuance you implied when you used these two words which, are generally interchangeable when it comes to a debate of this nature.
Well, the only other type of regulation is wholly ineffectual unless you make the assumption that all Kingdoms players are reasonable, mature people. I do not think that assumption pans out.
Your preferred method for regulation fails when implemented by unreasonable people, as would any. I have already said people are 'reasonable enough' and point out that it has seemed to work so far.
That Raziel guy has ostensibly been using his backstory for some time. How has your non-regulation helped there?
His use was limited to thinking it over and hadn't shared it with enough people to find people don't like those sorts of backstories and see how it makes it difficult to roleplay with him.

If a kingdom leader has to approve stories then you have two minds assessing them, and more chance that a vainglorious character concept will be rejected. It could even be possible to appoint an overall authority to arbitrate on these kinds of matters. It still assumes that some people are reasonable but, even if the leaders and staff members are all as incompetent as the average player, it still adds layers of redundancy.
You seem to think that these players don't know each other or act more competitively than cooperatively. As it stands if a backstory is so objectionable to a kingdom leader they technically can tell the person to change it or they are kicked out. The current structure is that people want to play in a cooperative fashion with the other members, and anything they add that is disruptive is likely to be shaken out. The people within these groups are not roleplaying 'at' each other but with each other, there is already a bias towards acheiving a degree of harmony there without draconian rulesets.
Right. So why are you placing the fault with CP and not the other kingdoms? Because of your opinion. Who are you to say what is and isn't good roleplaying?
If you are trying to demonstrate that I like a 'no rules' approach because I have some mechanism for 'getting my way' anyway you are mistaken. I simply favor and am among the 'other kingdoms' as opposed to CP. I personally of the opinion that bugging boats results in no naval abilities whatsoever, on either side, and that it is unreasonable to assume creating a slice of cake could damage or block a boat. I don't care to argue my opinion - its just that, my opinion. The issue is that it caused problems for all the kingdoms, and is an example of an actual problem, which you asked me to provide.
Yeah? So? You still place the blame on those that didn't.

You asked for an example of a problem and I gave you one. Whether you found the community as a whole resolved it badly or not is not of concern to me.
Which are the "decent kingdoms"?
I just gave you the definintion of what I would consider the attributes that make a kingdom decent within the context that I used the word 'decent' - its not a 'I name these kingdoms as decent and those ones are not' sort of issue.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=absolute
I wanted the context you were using the word in or a clarification of your statement where you used it, I know my way around a dictionary.
...Town A, and you were arguing with an engineer from Town B, and he said "Look, guys, I like the style and all but is the huge carbon fibre hat actually better at preventing leaks than a normal roof?" that you would retort with "Hey, your opinions are invalid. You can't know how water behaves in this town - not until you've spoken with Mrs Peterson and Mr Jameson and the Johnsons and all the other residents! Get the hell out!"

Does that clear it up a bit?
See you proved my point on this one. Your example is flawed because you are comparing what actually does behave the same - water - (well drainage can be enormously different but that is not where you were going) between the two communities to something that is different. See, the self regulation in Kingdoms is (apparently) something you are unfamiliar with and it greatly affects the issue at hand. Water on the other hand, is as arbitary as a large purple hat - offers no significant difference.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Kaimetsu
03-27-2005, 09:38 AM
Even inductive logic requires limited observations to back it up, what observations do you feel back up your assertions in this case?

Experiences of human nature. I do, of course, assume that other people have similar experiences.

You cited the demon fellow thread, though there was clear disproval of that and I doubt he will be up playing backstory anytime soon in any rping

I think your "doubts" are worth precisely diddley-squat. Anyway, we're discussing this above.

Then there is Shawn, though his backstory has only led to enchancing the roleplaying of GK

I've already said that I don't particularly object to Shawn's character. Strawmanning again.

then there is Gryf, whom you assert supports egocentric 'bad' backstories. He however, arrived at his backstory when an entire new race was added to 2k1

Again you are misrepresenting my argument. I do not oppose Gryffon's story solely because of his species - that is just one factor.

Anyway, why should the invention of a race be excused just because it happened a long time ago? How many birdmen were there on 2K1? And lastly, moving a character from 2K1 to GK is not something that should be done casually. They are different worlds with different styles. Migrating without considering the suitability of your character is an example of poor roleplaying.

I would say that the observations to date support that they are, as these problems have not arisen

Assertion.

You are talking to people who have a lot more experience with him to deduce his motives from than just reading one backstory

Well, I am talking to hundreds of people, potentially. Some of them will have more experience with him than I. Hopefully they have the sense to recognise his faults, too.

You may as well be claiming that gryffon is a cruel person based on a hand writting analysis

Begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). Your comparison assumes the very claim it's supposed to support; that the event on which I'm judging him is not representative of his character.

Um.....are there even any more examples of people with 'whacky backstories' to use as examples?

Exactly. Your claim is predicated on the inaccuracy of your earlier assertions. If you want to argue that there are never any unsuitable characters then you cannot make claims about how the community deals with them. One or the other, dude. Choose.

I knew that would be your argument and I would ask you to point out the subtle differences of nuance you implied when you used these two words which, are generally interchangeable when it comes to a debate of this nature

The only people that use them interchangeable are those who don't know the difference between them. They are completely different terms. By your logic, no human can ever make an impartial judgement, correct?

Your preferred method for regulation fails when implemented by unreasonable people, as would any

I have already covered this point below. Layers of redundancy, dude.

it has seemed to work so far

Assertion.

His use was limited to thinking it over and hadn't shared it with enough people to find people don't like those sorts of backstories

According to him, he's been carrying that heart around for a while now. Do you have any grounds on which to say that he hasn't been outwardly playing the character?

You seem to think that these players don't know each other or act more competitively than cooperatively

You seem to think that these players act more cooperatively than competitively.

I simply favor and am among the 'other kingdoms' as opposed to CP. I personally of the opinion that bugging boats results in no naval abilities whatsoever

You clearly implied that to do so was not an example of roleplaying. Do you think you have the authority to make such a claim?

You asked for an example of a problem and I gave you one

It is only a problem to those who get "bugged", right? I'm pretty sure the pirates aren't shedding any tears over it. If they were interested in being reasonable, cooperative roleplayers, they wouldn't be doing it.

I just gave you the definintion of what I would consider the attributes that make a kingdom decent

Which are the "decent kingdoms"?

I wanted the context you were using the word in or a clarification of your statement where you used it

What exactly needs to be clarified? It all seems quite simple to me.

See you proved my point on this one. Your example is flawed because you are comparing what actually does behave the same - water - (well drainage can be enormously different but that is not where you were going) between the two communities to something that is different

See, you are begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) again.

I agree that water behaves the same between towns. In the example, you are the one arguing that it does not.

busyrobot
03-27-2005, 09:44 AM
No, it's an explanation of the nature of the universe. Billions of variables, too many for you or I to process. When dealing with collective consciousness, it's utterly impossible to reliably track causality.

Everything is part of a system and some systems are simplier than others.

This community is simple enough for it to self manage the issue of races. It has not had trouble with races for this exact reason.

Yes.

Butterfly flaps wings, hurricane brews in south Atlantic. Can you track cause and effect in that case?

And yet I would find it difficult to believe you could devise a rule system to manage South Atlantic hurricanes. Lets keep the examples relevant maybe?

Believe it or not, giving one example of a possible thing does not mean that all similar things are possible.
Of course, simular does not mean identical, thus its an issue of probability.
Which is where the inductive logic comes in. If it is sound, there is no need for direct observations.

Inductive logic needs at least limited observations, and you have to demonstrate that the 'sound logic' is sound and fits the situtation.
I have already said your logic is 'generally sound' in my opinion but fails to account for local factors, which I already outlined.

Right. So a simple 'yes' would have sufficed.
'Both' would be more accurate.
You intentionally misrepresent my position. I say that you have no reason to believe ¬X. You say that I'm accusing you of being "out of line" for not assuming X. These are completely different things.
I don't think that analogy fits - care to fill in the blanks with the actual case in point that you are referring to?
Already tackled this, man. Induction. The only reasonable way for you to argue is to analyse the logic.
I already did that, and whereas your logic fails to describe the environment (you add a 'constant' of sorts for us being lucky and not yet having the problems you warn of) I have proposed an augmentation to your logic (the self regulation elements) that accounts for both your concerns and describes the environment accurately without relying on luck or other modifying constants.

Your only recourse, is to attempt to challange the logic of my countering argument as unsound or provide some missing evidence that supports the idea that your logic represents the environment more accurately than mine.

If you are just catching up that is why environmental observations have come into play.

You make assertions about the game world. Their relation to my predictions does not define them. You say that the world is in a certain state, but you don't offer to prove it. What value can I give this claim, then? If you base your argument on it then your argument is void.

Other than Shawn and Gryf and 'the demon' (all of which I have already explained) there are no other examples to even reference of these problems. My assertion is to that of an absense of something. The absense of something can never be effectively proven - you should know that - it can only be disproven by showing that such is not in fact absent.

I, meanwhile, base my argument on generalised reasoning about human nature. It is not specific to any single gameworld.

Yet it does not accurately reflect the shape of the game world, and does not take into account specific local factors, such as the ones I outlined.
I can make a generalized argument about human nature that 'humans are violent' and assume that it is safer to walk empty dark alleys than in a crowded church. That does not mean it reflects all the local factors accurately to have any relevance.

I have seen him create an egocentric backstory. Does this not qualify as roleplaying?

We've all had the experience of reading (not seeing him create it) his backstory, but many of us have also had many hours of playing with the fellow to add to our experience. Can you say the same?

I don't think that sentence makes sense. In any case, it is certainly not a proof of your claim about the events on GK.

Let me add quotes:
I support "that just because people can does not mean they do", and that in this regard the community is self managing
By which I mean, just because something can happen does not mean it will, as there can be and actually are other factors, such as the self regulating ones I already mentioned.

You argued that ¬praised(x) -> ¬encouraged(x).

Huh? Clarify?

We saw an example of one person with a ridiculously egocentric story, and only one GK player reprimanded him for it. How many GK players posted in that thread without doing the same? And would he have been reprimanded if his story were slightly less grandiose?

The issue is not how grandiose a story is but if it negatively impacts it has on roleplaying within the community. One person at least feels it does, it bothered her, and she was asking if it bothers other people, who I assume based on their direct experience of playing with him, and the unique factors that went into the creation of that backstory, do not feel adversely affected by his backstory. Given that it is unlikely that anyone else would reproduce the unqiue factors that went into the creation of Gryf's story nor would they likely roleplay their characters as humbly in nature as Gryf has proven to over the years, it is unlikely that people would be more supporting of new 'outlandish' stories anymore than people were of the demon backstory.

Well, you have argued against making policies based on theory. What else is there?

Observation.
Because, what, the act of five people thinking about something has the power to instantly rewrite the attitudes of everybody on the server?
If it became a problem it would be a problem for more than just 5 players, not a case of people all having a great time with grand backstories living it up and having the party stopped by some cranky kingdom leaders.

Brad
03-27-2005, 10:00 AM
you guys spent hours typing to argue over races in graal

go buy yourself mcdonalds you deserve an award

Kaimetsu
03-27-2005, 10:17 AM
Everything is part of a system and some systems are simplier than others

Yes. But this does not contradict my point.

This community is simple enough for it to self manage the issue of races

Well, that's a completely different matter. We were talking about tracking Gryffon's influence, which remains impossible.

It has not had trouble with races

Assertion.


And yet I would find it difficult to believe you could devise a rule system to manage South Atlantic hurricanes. Lets keep the examples relevant maybe?

"Poltician nukes the capitol and chaos ensues"

Nice consistency.

Inductive logic needs at least limited observations

Yes. But not of the kind you think. My arguments are predicated on human nature being as I describe. You can tackle this issue, but it is not specific to any Graal server.

I don't think that analogy fits - care to fill in the blanks with the actual case in point that you are referring to?

It's not an analogy, it's a direct copy. Minus some specifics, of course.

Me: "Nor have I given you reason to believe that I've only seen one example" = "You have no reason to believe ¬X" (where X is 'I have seen multiple examples')
You: "[You] act like I am out of line for not assuming you have tons of more instances to back up your case?" = "You're accusing me of being "out of line" for not assuming X"

I already did that, and whereas your logic fails to describe the environment

Are you not listening? Inductive logic! If the core reasoning holds, it applies to any environment! Your only recourse is to show that the reasoning is invalid. You can only do this by:
A) Proving that GK hasn't been affected in the way that I describe - that it would be no better if there were a system of regulation.
B) Finding some flaw in the logic.

Your current approach - repetitive assertions about the current state of GK - is void of any persuasive value. It just doesn't tackle the argument.

Other than Shawn and Gryf and 'the demon' (all of which I have already explained) there are no other examples to even reference of these problems

Assertion.

The absense of something can never be effectively proven - you should know that - it can only be disproven by showing that such is not in fact absent

Great, so you can't prove your claims. What, are you telling me this so that I'll feel sorry for you? Just stop making them!

Yet it does not accurately reflect the shape of the game world

Assertion.

and does not take into account specific local factors

Well, the impact of those factors is still in dispute. So far I think the discussion looks like this:

Me: You assume that everybody is reasonable. Can you support this claim?
You: Everybody is reasonable!!!

We've all had the experience of reading (not seeing him create it) his backstory, but many of us have also had many hours of playing with the fellow to add to our experience

Are you implying that the person who knows X best is automatically the best source for information on him/her? That we should ignore all other facts if X's friend tells us something that contradicts them? That would make the judicial system much less expensive, I think. We could just go ask the criminals' mothers for their opinions.

By which I mean, just because something can happen does not mean it will

But that is not the same as proving that it doesn't.

Huh? Clarify?

You do not understand formal logic? That is quite a handicap. I suggest that you consult Wikipedia or somesuch.

The issue is not how grandiose a story is but if it negatively impacts it has on roleplaying within the community

Man, stop changing your story. First you hold that demon-guy thread as a shining example of community self-regulation, then you deny that there was a problem to begin with. Then what exactly was regulated?

Observation

Observations cannot be used as the basis for new policies unless they are turned into theories.

If it became a problem it would be a problem for more than just 5 players

Then why are you even talking about kingdom leaders?

"All it would take is for kingdom leaders to say "you know this has gotten to be a problem we need to rethink this now""