A Comedy of Species

[busyrobot]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

And how can you say that things wouldn't be significantly better if a certain factor were removed? How can you say that certain problems would still have occured? These things aren't always obvious, much like the ozone layer thing.

That is a huge generalization. If by 'a' certain factor you meant posting know-it-alls and by 'things' you meant the forums then sure, I could agree with you. There are tons of 'things' and tons of 'factors' so whether 'things' would be significantly better or not kinda depends on the 'factors' and 'things' in question.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Give me an example.

Poltician nukes the capitol and chaos ensues. Can you track cause and effect in that case?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

First you argued that I cannot possibly make my argument without providing direct evidence of the phenomenon I describe. Are you now rescinding that, but criticising the inductive logic? I need to know where we stand here.

I am saying when taking drastic enough action as to limit what people can and can not do via a governing body that you need to have some level of evidence to support the need. I am also questioning the inductive logic in your assertions.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

I don't think that's what I said. I think you're being irrational for going to the other extreme - assuming that I haven't seen anything else. Stop strawmanning.

I am not strawmanning I am asking you to provide more examples that you feel support your convictions instead of just saying you could know of more examples than you have mentioned.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

That's one danger. But it's just a symptom of a wider problem - an egocentric attitude to roleplaying. That's what Gryffon encourages and condones.

Can you outline the dangers you are asserting are a problem so then perhaps, at this late point, we can actually debate if they are well founded or not? I am attacking your assertions as to the risk of that one danger you outlined because it is all you have mentioned so far. How can you say 'there are more' with any weight if you won't offer them for evaluation?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Please stop trying to break my argument into itty bitty pieces. Tackle the whole or nothing at all.

Its the only substantive risk you have mentioned as a basis for your concern - its perfectly valid for me to point out its an ill founded one.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Doubtful. Seems more likely that you just don't understand burdens of proof.

When have I asked you to prove a claim that you haven't made?

We are not talking about proving proof for claims not made, we are talking about your requests that I prove that there is an absense of proof that your points are wrong, as if your arugments have an intristic authenticity about them.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Seeing a kingdom leader roleplay in an egocentric fashion encourages players to do likewise. That's it. That's my whole argument. Inventing races is just one possible expression of it.

Yet you have not seen him roleplay, and are assuming he is an egocentric roleplayer because of his background story. Yet I have personal experience with seening him roleplay and roleplaying with him. But should I assume that difference between us is really no larger than if say, if I had but you had not roleplayed in a large purple hat?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Well, I guess that depends. If you approve of Gryffon's backstory then you must have some pretty loose standards.

I approve of how he has roleplayed to date with that backstory, and I don't think that is the result of loose standards.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

And again: If you make that claim, you must support it. That, or leave it for the audience to assess for themselves. Make a choice and then stick with it. Repeated assertions don't qualify as either.

I support that just because people can does not mean they do, and that in this regard the community is self managing.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Stop changing the argument. You said: "that one person did not receive encouraging praise for those elements of his story, thus showing it is not encouraged". Do you now admit that praise is not the only way to encourage somebody?

When the heck did I ever say praise was the only way to encourage somebody? All I was saying is the sum effect between encouragement vs discouragement leans very heavily towards the discouragement end, and that anyone who mistakes Gryf's backstory as an encouragement to make a similar backstory, would be more than disuaded by the amount of discouragement.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Again, evading the point. "Making rules based soley on one person's theories also threaten to break the cohesion of a server". Do you now admit that predictions are a good basis for making rulings, compared to choosing a policy at random?

Who has endorsed policy at random? I know I haven't. When rules are being made already based on concrete needs allowing predictions - at least well reasoned and generally scientifically backed ones - to shape them is fine by me. But as a general rule an unsubstantiated prediction is not a good reason to make a rule where one has never been needed.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Yeah, we just break out the mind control rods.

All it would take is for kingdom leaders to say "you know this has gotten to be a problem we need to rethink this now" and we could leave the mind control rods at home.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

That is a huge generalization

No, it's an explanation of the nature of the universe. Billions of variables, too many for you or I to process. When dealing with collective consciousness, it's utterly impossible to reliably track causality.

Poltician nukes the capitol and chaos ensues. Can you track cause and effect in that case?

Yes.

Butterfly flaps wings, hurricane brews in south Atlantic. Can you track cause and effect in that case?

Believe it or not, giving one example of a possible thing does not mean that all similar things are possible.

I am saying when taking drastic enough action as to limit what people can and can not do via a governing body that you need to have some level of evidence to support the need

Which is where the inductive logic comes in. If it is sound, there is no need for direct observations.

I am also questioning the inductive logic in your assertions

Right. So a simple 'yes' would have sufficed.

I am not strawmanning

You intentionally misrepresent my position. I say that you have no reason to believe ¬X. You say that I'm accusing you of being "out of line" for not assuming X. These are completely different things.

Can you outline the dangers you are asserting are a problem so then perhaps, at this late point, we can actually debate if they are well founded or not?

Already tackled this, man. Induction. The only reasonable way for you to argue is to analyse the logic.

We are not talking about proving proof for claims not made, we are talking about your requests that I prove that there is an absense of proof that your points are wrong

You make assertions about the game world. Their relation to my predictions does not define them. You say that the world is in a certain state, but you don't offer to prove it. What value can I give this claim, then? If you base your argument on it then your argument is void.

I, meanwhile, base my argument on generalised reasoning about human nature. It is not specific to any single gameworld.

Yet you have not seen him roleplay, and are assuming he is an egocentric roleplayer because of his background story

I have seen him create an egocentric backstory. Does this not qualify as roleplaying?

I support that just because people can does not mean they do, and that in this regard the community is self managing

I don't think that sentence makes sense. In any case, it is certainly not a proof of your claim about the events on GK.

When the heck did I ever say praise was the only way to encourage somebody?

You argued that ¬praised(x) -> ¬encouraged(x).

All I was saying is the sum effect between encouragement vs discouragement leans very heavily towards the discouragement end

We saw an example of one person with a ridiculously egocentric story, and only one GK player reprimanded him for it. How many GK players posted in that thread without doing the same? And would he have been reprimanded if his story were slightly less grandiose?

Who has endorsed policy at random?

Well, you have argued against making policies based on theory. What else is there?

All it would take is for kingdom leaders to say "you know this has gotten to be a problem we need to rethink this now" and we could leave the mind control rods at home

Because, what, the act of five people thinking about something has the power to instantly rewrite the attitudes of everybody on the server?

[busyrobot]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

No, it's an explanation of the nature of the universe. Billions of variables, too many for you or I to process. When dealing with collective consciousness, it's utterly impossible to reliably track causality.

Everything is part of a system and some systems are simplier than others.

This community is simple enough for it to self manage the issue of races. It has not had trouble with races for this exact reason.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Yes.

Butterfly flaps wings, hurricane brews in south Atlantic. Can you track cause and effect in that case?

And yet I would find it difficult to believe you could devise a rule system to manage South Atlantic hurricanes. Lets keep the examples relevant maybe?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Believe it or not, giving one example of a possible thing does not mean that all similar things are possible.

Of course, simular does not mean identical, thus its an issue of probability.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Which is where the inductive logic comes in. If it is sound, there is no need for direct observations.

Inductive logic needs at least limited observations, and you have to demonstrate that the 'sound logic' is sound and fits the situtation.
I have already said your logic is 'generally sound' in my opinion but fails to account for local factors, which I already outlined.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Right. So a simple 'yes' would have sufficed.

'Both' would be more accurate.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

You intentionally misrepresent my position. I say that you have no reason to believe ¬X. You say that I'm accusing you of being "out of line" for not assuming X. These are completely different things.

I don't think that analogy fits - care to fill in the blanks with the actual case in point that you are referring to?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Already tackled this, man. Induction. The only reasonable way for you to argue is to analyse the logic.

I already did that, and whereas your logic fails to describe the environment (you add a 'constant' of sorts for us being lucky and not yet having the problems you warn of) I have proposed an augmentation to your logic (the self regulation elements) that accounts for both your concerns and describes the environment accurately without relying on luck or other modifying constants.

Your only recourse, is to attempt to challange the logic of my countering argument as unsound or provide some missing evidence that supports the idea that your logic represents the environment more accurately than mine.

If you are just catching up that is why environmental observations have come into play.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

You make assertions about the game world. Their relation to my predictions does not define them. You say that the world is in a certain state, but you don't offer to prove it. What value can I give this claim, then? If you base your argument on it then your argument is void.

Other than Shawn and Gryf and 'the demon' (all of which I have already explained) there are no other examples to even reference of these problems. My assertion is to that of an absense of something. The absense of something can never be effectively proven - you should know that - it can only be disproven by showing that such is not in fact absent.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

I, meanwhile, base my argument on generalised reasoning about human nature. It is not specific to any single gameworld.

Yet it does not accurately reflect the shape of the game world, and does not take into account specific local factors, such as the ones I outlined.
I can make a generalized argument about human nature that 'humans are violent' and assume that it is safer to walk empty dark alleys than in a crowded church. That does not mean it reflects all the local factors accurately to have any relevance.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

I have seen him create an egocentric backstory. Does this not qualify as roleplaying?

We've all had the experience of reading (not seeing him create it) his backstory, but many of us have also had many hours of playing with the fellow to add to our experience. Can you say the same?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

I don't think that sentence makes sense. In any case, it is certainly not a proof of your claim about the events on GK.

Let me add quotes:
I support "that just because people can does not mean they do", and that in this regard the community is self managing
By which I mean, just because something can happen does not mean it will, as there can be and actually are other factors, such as the self regulating ones I already mentioned.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

You argued that ¬praised(x) -> ¬encouraged(x).

Huh? Clarify?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

We saw an example of one person with a ridiculously egocentric story, and only one GK player reprimanded him for it. How many GK players posted in that thread without doing the same? And would he have been reprimanded if his story were slightly less grandiose?

The issue is not how grandiose a story is but if it negatively impacts it has on roleplaying within the community. One person at least feels it does, it bothered her, and she was asking if it bothers other people, who I assume based on their direct experience of playing with him, and the unique factors that went into the creation of that backstory, do not feel adversely affected by his backstory. Given that it is unlikely that anyone else would reproduce the unqiue factors that went into the creation of Gryf's story nor would they likely roleplay their characters as humbly in nature as Gryf has proven to over the years, it is unlikely that people would be more supporting of new 'outlandish' stories anymore than people were of the demon backstory.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Well, you have argued against making policies based on theory. What else is there?

Observation.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Because, what, the act of five people thinking about something has the power to instantly rewrite the attitudes of everybody on the server?

If it became a problem it would be a problem for more than just 5 players, not a case of people all having a great time with grand backstories living it up and having the party stopped by some cranky kingdom leaders.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

Everything is part of a system and some systems are simplier than others

Yes. But this does not contradict my point.

This community is simple enough for it to self manage the issue of races

Well, that's a completely different matter. We were talking about tracking Gryffon's influence, which remains impossible.

It has not had trouble with races

Assertion.

And yet I would find it difficult to believe you could devise a rule system to manage South Atlantic hurricanes. Lets keep the examples relevant maybe?

"Poltician nukes the capitol and chaos ensues"

Nice consistency.

Inductive logic needs at least limited observations

Yes. But not of the kind you think. My arguments are predicated on human nature being as I describe. You can tackle this issue, but it is not specific to any Graal server.

I don't think that analogy fits - care to fill in the blanks with the actual case in point that you are referring to?

It's not an analogy, it's a direct copy. Minus some specifics, of course.

Me: "Nor have I given you reason to believe that I've only seen one example" = "You have no reason to believe ¬X" (where X is 'I have seen multiple examples')
You: "[You] act like I am out of line for not assuming you have tons of more instances to back up your case?" = "You're accusing me of being "out of line" for not assuming X"

I already did that, and whereas your logic fails to describe the environment

Are you not listening? Inductive logic! If the core reasoning holds, it applies to any environment! Your only recourse is to show that the reasoning is invalid. You can only do this by:
A) Proving that GK hasn't been affected in the way that I describe - that it would be no better if there were a system of regulation.
B) Finding some flaw in the logic.

Your current approach - repetitive assertions about the current state of GK - is void of any persuasive value. It just doesn't tackle the argument.

Other than Shawn and Gryf and 'the demon' (all of which I have already explained) there are no other examples to even reference of these problems

Assertion.

The absense of something can never be effectively proven - you should know that - it can only be disproven by showing that such is not in fact absent

Great, so you can't prove your claims. What, are you telling me this so that I'll feel sorry for you? Just stop making them!

Yet it does not accurately reflect the shape of the game world

Assertion.

and does not take into account specific local factors

Well, the impact of those factors is still in dispute. So far I think the discussion looks like this:

Me: You assume that everybody is reasonable. Can you support this claim?
You: Everybody is reasonable!!!

We've all had the experience of reading (not seeing him create it) his backstory, but many of us have also had many hours of playing with the fellow to add to our experience

Are you implying that the person who knows X best is automatically the best source for information on him/her? That we should ignore all other facts if X's friend tells us something that contradicts them? That would make the judicial system much less expensive, I think. We could just go ask the criminals' mothers for their opinions.

By which I mean, just because something can happen does not mean it will

But that is not the same as proving that it doesn't.

Huh? Clarify?

You do not understand formal logic? That is quite a handicap. I suggest that you consult Wikipedia or somesuch.

The issue is not how grandiose a story is but if it negatively impacts it has on roleplaying within the community

Man, stop changing your story. First you hold that demon-guy thread as a shining example of community self-regulation, then you deny that there was a problem to begin with. Then what exactly was regulated?

Observation

Observations cannot be used as the basis for new policies unless they are turned into theories.

If it became a problem it would be a problem for more than just 5 players

Then why are you even talking about kingdom leaders?

"All it would take is for kingdom leaders to say "you know this has gotten to be a problem we need to rethink this now""