A Comedy of Species

[busyrobot]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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

Just making an observation.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

...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.