A Comedy of Species

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

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]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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

Its been mentioned on this board a lot.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Yeah, but:

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

You base this on?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

Its been mentioned on this board a lot

I was judging from this thread. 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]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

I was judging from this thread. 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.

...

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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!'

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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?'

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Haha, please try to stay on topic.

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

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Or, rather, on your enjoyment of the game.

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

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

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]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

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]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

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.