[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

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