[busyrobot]

(part 2)

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

AKA: etc, etc.

etc, etc.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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

No comment, lol