Nor was I. Irony? (n/t)

Nor was I. Irony? (n/t):
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum ]

Posted by Proud Blade(VIP) on July 14, 2000 at 13:31:44:

In Reply to: I'll speak slowly for you: jo-ke. I doubt he was seriously pissed. n/t posted by Clever Reader on July 14, 2000 at 10:37:28:

> > > However, to state that the rules are beyond question or interpretation is to tread soundly in the realm of foolishness. We are not speaking of some a priori truth that is revealed to us by the benevolent immortals. We are speaking of a set of practical rules that have been deemed wise as a means of preserving game balance and making the game enjoyable for the largest possible number of players.

> > I agree. People have brought up rules for debate on the Forum on many occasions. However, when you log on to CF, you make a contract to abide by those rules.

> > > Yes, players. The rules exist ultimately for our benefit, to preserve a fair playing field, such that success in the world of CF does not boil down to the size of one's circle of CF-playing friends or ICQ list, or the number of scripted characters that one can simultaneously run. To this end, it is perfectly reasonable, and arguably our right as players, to seek some sort of discourse clarifying or questioning aspects of the rules.

> > To me, the post smacked of "How much grey area is there?", when the more obvious guideline of "Just don't mix OOC and IC knowledge" would have applied. I have already admitted below that I worded matters a bit too strongly, given the original poster's words.

> > > Now, this brings me to the second part of my little manifesto. It was suggested by Scarabaeus initially, and then supported by Proud Blade, that objecting to (or in the case in question, merely seeking clarification regarding) one of the tenets laid down by the immortal staff is a sign of questionable moral fiber. I strongly object to this suggestion, on several grounds.

> > Again, you are confusing my point. So long as the rule is in place, I disagree with flaunting it. If the rule is changed (due to debate here or elsewhere), fine. But I'm not a fan of "vigilante" playing, where each player decides what rules they like best. Again, the contract.

> > > Finally, some people forget that the Immortals are human beings just like the rest of us, subject to the same flaws as we, perhaps compounded and exacerbated by the artificial power that they wield within the world of CF. Moral dictates and judgment cannot and should not come from immoral people, and in my experience, a majority of the Immortal staff has little compunction making exceptions to their rules in certain cases, nor in violating the implicit trust of players. This brings me to my main criticism of you, Proud Blade: naiveté, in the extreme. The blind and ultimately baseless attitude that the immortals are nigh-infallible in their pronouncements leads you to erroneous judgments and taints the more valid points you make.

> > There's no conflict here, actually. The IMMs should hold themselves to the same standard that they hold the playerbase. (Higher, probably, given their greater access to potentially unbalancing information.) Nowhere, in letter or spirit, did I state that IMMs should be immune to the rules given.

> > I'm a big fan of the rules becuase they make sense to me. It seems to be a fair way to run a game. The author doesn't really matter.

> > > To some extent, it is an understandable position to hold, but it cheapens your words and your credibility in the eyes of those who know better. I admittedly once thought similarly to you, when I first started playing CF. I vividly recall posting a gripe on the old Official CF Forum (c. 3/98) about how overpowered Eriwal's wolverine form was, totally convinced that I was in the right (as a storm sword spec Knight hero with haste, giant resist, protection from evil, and perfect skills, I died in 4 rounds without getting a command through). Cador replied stating that the wolverine was meant to be somewhat overpowered, but that Eriwal deserved it, and that I lost the fight because of mistakes I made. Nepenthe seconded the statement with an affirmation of Eriwal's stellar roleplay, and that still-infamous comment about that jaw-dropping thing that Eriwal had done. I backed down, and actually made later posts defending the wolverine, since if Cador (the God of Honor, Lord of the Knights!) and Nepenthe said I was wrong, then surely I was. I still wince when I think back to that. For the unenlightened, Cador was Eriwal (he's not a current immortal--this is not a violation of Forum Rules), who coded the form for his own mortal to have.

> > Not that Cador's willingness or unwillingness to play fairly has any bearing on your own. If what you posted is true and complete, then of course Cador was out of line. I'd never defend that. I agree with you- there should be one standard. Please point out where I supported a double standard.
> >
> > > PS: Proud Blade, in the future, kindly refrain from addressing my girlfriend as "dearest." Thanks.

> > I'll speak slowly for you: Con-de-scen-sion.

> > Hopefully, you picked up on the largely sarcastic tone of my debate with "Player". Fortunately for you, she seems to be capable of defending herself from my sarcasm.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail:
Subject:
Comments:	> > > > However, to state that the rules are beyond question or interpretation is to tread soundly in the realm of foolishness. We are not speaking of some <i>a priori</i> truth that is revealed to us by the benevolent immortals. We are speaking of a set of practical rules that have been deemed wise as a means of preserving game balance and making the game enjoyable for the largest possible number of players. > > > I agree. People have brought up rules for debate on the Forum on many occasions. However, when you log on to CF, you make a contract to abide by those rules. > > > > Yes, players. The rules exist ultimately for our benefit, to preserve a fair playing field, such that success in the world of CF does not boil down to the size of one's circle of CF-playing friends or ICQ list, or the number of scripted characters that one can simultaneously run. To this end, it is perfectly reasonable, and arguably our right as players, to seek some sort of discourse clarifying or questioning aspects of the rules. > > > To me, the post smacked of "How much grey area is there?", when the more obvious guideline of "Just don't mix OOC and IC knowledge" would have applied. I have already admitted below that I worded matters a bit too strongly, given the original poster's words. > > > > Now, this brings me to the second part of my little manifesto. It was suggested by Scarabaeus initially, and then supported by Proud Blade, that objecting to (or in the case in question, merely seeking clarification regarding) one of the tenets laid down by the immortal staff is a sign of questionable moral fiber. I strongly object to this suggestion, on several grounds. > > > Again, you are confusing my point. So long as the rule is in place, I disagree with flaunting it. If the rule is changed (due to debate here or elsewhere), fine. But I'm not a fan of "vigilante" playing, where each player decides what rules they like best. Again, the contract. > > > > Finally, some people forget that the Immortals are human beings just like the rest of us, subject to the same flaws as we, perhaps compounded and exacerbated by the artificial power that they wield within the world of CF. Moral dictates and judgment cannot and should not come from immoral people, and in my experience, a majority of the Immortal staff has little compunction making exceptions to their rules in certain cases, nor in violating the implicit trust of players. This brings me to my main criticism of you, Proud Blade: naiveté, in the extreme. The blind and ultimately baseless attitude that the immortals are nigh-infallible in their pronouncements leads you to erroneous judgments and taints the more valid points you make. > > > There's no conflict here, actually. The IMMs should hold themselves to the same standard that they hold the playerbase. (Higher, probably, given their greater access to potentially unbalancing information.) Nowhere, in letter or spirit, did I state that IMMs should be immune to the rules given. > > > I'm a big fan of the rules becuase they make sense to me. It seems to be a fair way to run a game. The author doesn't really matter. > > > > To some extent, it is an understandable position to hold, but it cheapens your words and your credibility in the eyes of those who know better. I admittedly once thought similarly to you, when I first started playing CF. I vividly recall posting a gripe on the old Official CF Forum (c. 3/98) about how overpowered Eriwal's wolverine form was, totally convinced that I was in the right (as a storm sword spec Knight hero with haste, giant resist, protection from evil, and perfect skills, I died in 4 rounds without getting a command through). Cador replied stating that the wolverine was meant to be somewhat overpowered, but that Eriwal deserved it, and that I lost the fight because of mistakes I made. Nepenthe seconded the statement with an affirmation of Eriwal's stellar roleplay, and that still-infamous comment about that jaw-dropping thing that Eriwal had done. I backed down, and actually made later posts defending the wolverine, since if Cador (the God of Honor, Lord of the Knights!) and Nepenthe said I was wrong, then surely I was. I still wince when I think back to that. For the unenlightened, Cador <i>was</i> Eriwal (he's not a current immortal--this is not a violation of Forum Rules), who coded the form for his own mortal to have. > > > Not that Cador's willingness or unwillingness to play fairly has any bearing on your own. If what you posted is true and complete, then of course Cador was out of line. I'd never defend that. I agree with you- there should be one standard. Please point out where I supported a double standard. > > > > > > > PS: Proud Blade, in the future, kindly refrain from addressing my girlfriend as "dearest." Thanks. > > > I'll speak slowly for you: Con-de-scen-sion. > > > Hopefully, you picked up on the largely sarcastic tone of my debate with "Player". Fortunately for you, she seems to be capable of defending herself from my sarcasm.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum ]