Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Z.Sinraali]

I'm gonna assume you mean 'people on the wrong end' to mean ones who have a moral claim against the results dictated by the rule. (If not, say something.) In that case, the rule is not arbitrary, but unfair. Arbitrary often leads to unfair, but they are not equivalent.

Now, the original statement that kicked this discussion off referred to the rule itself as arbitrary, not the establishment of the rule. A rule can absolutely be established arbitrarily. That doesn't make it an arbitrary rule. Arbitrary generally means subject to the whims of an individual or random chance. If the king of EVEland decrees one day that "Everyone must eat cookies at 1200 server time," then it's the arbitrary establishment of a rule. In order for the rule itself to be arbitrary, it would have to read "Everyone must eat cookies at 1200 server time, unless I say otherwise." In that case it's not even a rule at all, it's just the king deciding at 1200 server time every day whether we must eat cookies or not. (Granted, in the absence of a countermanding royal decree, the default position prevails, but in that case the king still decided to not issue it.)

Can I ask how you would formulate the rules you think are being proposed by the two sides here? Because I'm willing to bet that you're stating them differently than I would, which would probably help explain where you see arbitrariness and I don't.

[Aria Jenneth]

It's a RPWG. A roleplaying wargame.

Ah! And here our differences are summed up in a nutshell.

Eve, as a game, is about a whole pile of things. It's been described as a "market simulator with a spaceship game tacked on." It's got heavy scientific and manufacturing components; it's got various salvaging operations and so on.

But, it certainly does involve a lot of fighting. Our characters are, broadly speaking, killers, virtually without exception.

But in another sense, it's also a game about individual characters and individual stories. Every single player's story has its own "main character"-- and they're not all predominantly war stories. It's a world, and every character has, or has the potential for, a story.

We're telling stories to ourselves, and to each other. And in some sense, the only way to "win Eve" is to be satisfied with whatever story you've wound up telling.

'Cause, let's face it, BoB and Goonswarm's intentions aside, you're not, repeat, not going to be able to win it all. Those of us who are immersionists have an even lower chance of that than most. By being such, we basically turn in our "major power" cards at the office.

Not absolutely. But pretty close. There has never been, and probably will never be, an immersionist BoB, AAA, or Goonswarm. We're too fractious and we simply lack the numbers.

So-- if the war is, in the end, The Game, being an immersionist is accepting a massive handicap from the outset. As such, we might as well enjoy what we have, which is to say, the stories we are telling.

[Vikarion]

Oh, ye gods.

I regret very much bringing this topic up - I only did so to be fair to those who knew my previous beliefs.

[The Cosmopolite]

No, I'm not confusing 'unfair' and 'arbitrary'. We just disagree on this aspect of moral philosophy is what it comes down to.

A rule can absolutely be established arbitrarily. That doesn't make it an arbitrary rule.

That is a point on which you and I are going to disagree. It's a question of definition, I fear, and we're probably both able to make a case for our respective positions but it doesn't really get us anywhere.

You're adopting an approach that essentially defines rules as non-arbitrary by their very nature. That's fine but I don't think that's the type of 'rule' we are dealing with here.

Rather, laying aside the debatable case of whether a rule can ever be arbitrary, I think we're talking about a convention and I really hope we're not going to be told that conventions can never be arbitrary because otherwise the discussion is going to be between two sets of people with different languages. That is, impossible to transact.

The main reason there is an arbitrary dimension is that the exact drawing of the line is arbitrary. That drawing of the line is the rule or the convention and where the line is drawn is used to make judgements about people's play. I say that if the line if drawn in an arbitrary way those judgements are arbitrary. This is even the more so when, as is usual with this issue, the judgements are being made by the people drawing the line. It's actually almost always what happens and the line is constantly being shifted about and redrawn. If that's not arbitrary I really wonder what is.

Cosmo

[The Cosmopolite]

Aria,

I know some find quote-by-quote useful to order their posts but that one takes it to a degree I can't respond to in the same way.

Your question about my word choice and am I classically educated. The answer is no in that a classical education is I think still understood as having had Latin, at least, and more usually Ancient Greek as well. On the other hand, I am certainly versed in the arts and humanities to some degree. So much for that. (But incidentally, I the player know all about the history of the terminology of hysteria as I actually studied the history of medicine at one point...  )

Now, you say the IGS rules respect the Holy Divide. They do. But, and here is paradox, these incidents are extremely rare on IGS. They're actually fairly rare full-stop. The few that happen are blown out of all proportion because, well, let's leave it at people like to argue about this stuff for whatever reason.

I don't think the rules have been tested to anything like the degree that would be needed to divine the mod's mind on potential abuse of the Holy Divide. I don't much want it to be either. Suffice to say, I've seen OOC stuff get left on IGS enough times by mods that I somewhat doubt you can be secure in your reliance on the mods when it comes to public OOC/private OOC material and the suppression or control of contretemps over such on IGS.

On trivialization. I tell you what, and here's the tragedy for me personally, I take this issue quite seriously and I think you would find that I am one of those 'immersionists' you could trust to respect the Holy Divide, assuming you take my preferences into account as, in all courtesy, I took into account your own. I think it is has been in one sense trivialized because it has become a political football in the metagame. It's no longer really a serious issue on which people strive to reach common accord. This is rooted in ancient conflicts but, as you say, it's never really gone away and it erupts from time to time, reinforcing the sense that there's no true commonality to be found. Into that vacuum floods the arbitrary standpoints because, to function as RPers, everyone needs some sort of understanding of the IC/OOC interface.

My view is that it is a fuzzy interface and I never see any trouble from it other than is caused by a belief and an assertion that it is a line chiselled in the stone floor of the ampitheatre over which no man or woman may cross.

Another personal tragedy is that because people won't accept a fuzzy aspect to the divide, in reaction, and self-defence, some of us respond by making our position clear and simple. So, for example, I say that if my character features in the RP material of others without my consent that I reserve to myself the right to respond nonconsensually. Now, the truth is that it would be much better for me to take a fuzzy-line approach and say, 'I don't mind in general but if it starts to get clearly adversarial or used in such and such a manner, I won't be respecting your right to label it OOC information.' But there's no atmosphere of co-operation in the first place.

The general situation is summed up by the incident when one rather prominent RPer I will not name told me that to be proper RPers we had to do X, Y and Z. We weren't allowed to offer up conditions of co-operation A, B and C. No, it was all, this or you're not RPers. Why on earth should anyone put up with that?


On the wargame and storytelling. You know, I completely agree that storytelling is important but the context is that of a game of war. It can be military war, economic war, political war, whatever but, in the end, it's war. That is what EVE is all about. Would it be interesting without roleplay and storytelling? No, not particularly. I must admit, I couldn't see myself playing the game of EVE on the basis of its unvarnished game mechanics for more than 6 months if that's all there was to it. Plainly there is more but, I do think, in the end, the framework is essentially one of conflict: war. Incidentally, just because one can't win it all is not a reason to not try to win in some way that makes sense in the context of the game.

Incidentally, BoB was pretty 'immersionist' once upon a time. I kid ye not. To tell the truth, before people started thinking there was a real divide between RPers and other players of EVE, 0.0 politics and warfare in general was fairly 'immersionist'.

I could ventilate my views on the guilty when it comes to that dire change but it is probably pointless as there was an inevitability to it all as EVE grew ever larger. Still a great shame.

Cosmo

[Arvo Katsuya]

The main reason there is an arbitrary dimension is that the exact drawing of the line is arbitrary. That drawing of the line is the rule or the convention and where the line is drawn is used to make judgements about people's play. I say that if the line if drawn in an arbitrary way those judgements are arbitrary. This is even the more so when, as is usual with this issue, the judgements are being made by the people drawing the line. It's actually almost always what happens and the line is constantly being shifted about and redrawn. If that's not arbitrary I really wonder what is.

I have a video for this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30x8VTCaOws

[The Cosmopolite]

Probably fair comment but I have a better video that sums it all up.

The Terrible Secret of Space

Enjoy!

Cos

[Lillith Blackheart]

The answer is no in that a classical education is I think still understood as having had Latin, at least, and more usually Ancient Greek as well.

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/classical-education/

Not at all. It's a process of learning, not so much a specifics of language. It is language-based learning, but it doesn't need to be Latin and/or Greek.

[The Cosmopolite]

The answer is no in that a classical education is I think still understood as having had Latin, at least, and more usually Ancient Greek as well.

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/classical-education/

Not at all. It's a process of learning, not so much a specifics of language. It is language-based learning, but it doesn't need to be Latin and/or Greek.

Ah well, you see, this is a terminological confusion as a classical education would to me mean an education in the classics, reading and translating from the Latin and Ancient Greek being part of such an education in the classics.

I find that is still an accepted sense of the term in common parlance in the UK. Possibly this is one of those cross-Atlantic confusions.

Cosmo

[Lillith Blackheart]

Actually I believe it mostly stems from a recent adjustment of the terminology itself, as 10-15 years ago classical education (though otherwise the same) did require reading the majority of latin/greek classics in their original language, and the multi-lingual aspect was to improve the classical mind.

In recent years, however, I think partly to attempt to reconfigure the rather poor schooling systems in many countries, they've adjusted it to primarily refer to the technique used in classical education, but with a more pertinent curriculum, making it more approachable to kids these days.

[Lillith Blackheart]

And also, for the record, as one who spent a great deal of time in high school having to read and write reports on Pliny the Elder's works in the original Latin in his Latin III class -- thank God, because you have not been introduced to a linguistic nightmare until you have tried to translate early-period Latin (or Japanese from what I hear) into English, because they could throw all the words into a container, shake them up, spill them on the table, and the sentence didn't change.

So often they did.

[The Cosmopolite]

It's a matter of regret to me that I wasn't educated in Latin or Ancient Greek. Possibly more regret the latter as I am a fan of the Presocratics but there it is.

Cos

[Lillith Blackheart]

In all honesty you do not lose a great deal. The majority of loss is that you have an interpretation of the text that is not wholely your own, as much of the language won't directly translate. Alternatively, your interpretation would not necessarily be correct either, so six of one, half dozen of the other so to speak.

Latin is an interesting language, though. I don't remember much of it as there isn't exactly a great deal of use in being fluent in Latin, and so 16 years later I can barely remember basic declinations and conjugations.

[The Cosmopolite]

There is something in what you say, especially from my perspective as a philosopher*, given that reading of multiple interpretations is usual before coming to your own view.

Still, I can't help but feel it would be nice to read them in the original. Ah well.

Cos

* This is possibly where the whiff of a 'classical education' comes from, my university education was as a philosopher.

[Saede Riordan]