Like sands through the hour glass, these are the days of our lives.(no I don't watch it) nt

Like sands through the hour glass, these are the days of our lives.(no I don't watch it) nt:
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum ]

Posted by Imbrogno on July 14, 2000 at 14:34:04:

In Reply to: Reading that Cador was Eriwal was kind of like finding out there was no santa claus. n/t posted by Someone on July 14, 2000 at 14:27:46:

> > This is going to be part diatribe, and partly a response to the discussion concerning permgrouping, the CF rules in general, and the extent to which moral character on a higher level comes into play.

> > Proud Blade wrote:

> > "The IMMs spend a lot of time creating and maintaining the dynamic environment that is CF. They do it for free. All they ask of you is that you obey a one page list of rules. As long as you do that, you get to play for free. Why is this difficult? Why -should- they let people play who cheat, and cheapen the game for other people?"

> > Obviously, multicharring, equipment swapping, scouting, acting upon purely OOC impulses, and so forth, are cheating and detrimental to the game. Not a single person has argued that any of the above should be allowed, nor do I think anyone would seriously presume to. People want to follow the rules, perhaps because they idealistically (naively?) believe, as you do, that some greater, higher principle is thereby upheld, or simply perhaps because they do not like having the characters in which they have invested dozens--or hundreds--of hours denied.

> > 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.

> > 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.

> > In defense of "Wondering" and later on, Graham, who did not perhaps phrase their points in as clear and conciliatory a manner as possible: neither of them were saying anything along the lines of "but I have to cheat or this game is just no fun!" They were explaining their personal situations and asking how they might best stay within the rules that have been established by the immortals. It is not reasonable to expect that anyone who has a friend who plays CF should immediately cease all interaction with said friend--perhaps work out alternating shifts during which they permit each other to utilize the campus computer lab, and tread cautiously in any conversations, lest the topic of the game arise. Realistically, all he was saying is that it is a given that friends are going to talk about the game at least from time to time, and he then proceeded to ask to what extent he has to bend over backwards in order not to be denied for "permagrouping."

> > The real answer to this question is: treat someone whom you know in real life (or on IRC) just like you would anyone else in the game, and you'll do just fine. Don't rank and group with them exclusively, make sure to separate knowledge that you might possess OOC about each other from what your characters would know IC, and so forth. Exclusively being the key word in the above. A bolt from the heavens isn't going to strike anyone who ever glances at someone they know outside of the game. It only becomes a problem when it either serves to give you a marked advantage over other players as a result of your connections (PK squads, mostly), or when you limit your interactions to this narrow circle and cease contributing anything to the game as a whole. (For example: Player A logs on, you ask Player A to group, Player A tells you "I'm busy, maybe later", Players B & C log on from the same site, ABC get together, etc.)

> > 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.

> > First, on what basis do we presume that morality or the lack thereof have anything at all to do with one's willingness to adhere to an arbitrary set of rules promulgated by people who are not necessarily our betters? Idealism, morality, and other such lofty notions need not enter the picture at all in this matter. The people whose morality was questioned never suggested doing anything at the expense of the enjoyment of others, but merely wanted to understand whether their harmless behavior was prohibited by the rules, and if so, whether that was really in keeping with the immortals' intent.

> > Secondly, this is indeed a game, and one of the most appealing concepts entailed in this game is the escapism it offers. In theory, this escapism extends only to the characters that are roleplayed, but in reality the player himself/herself is also thinking and functioning outside of his normal day-to-day existence. It is not hard to imagine someone who follows a strict moral code in his day-to-day existence, but doesn't especially care about the restrictions imposed upon him when he plays a computer game over the Internet. Now, you could argue that he's failing to consider the impact of his actions upon other people, and that's a valid argument. But that's an oversight he's making, not a character flaw. In the particular case of permagrouping, it is something that was basically allowed until quite recently. Even the blatant, blatant SMUG groups (Cezaar/Jebediah/Zimmeron, Vargas/Sabas/Stiles, etc.) didn't get denied for permagrouping. When they did get denied, it was for breaking the rules about multicharring (logging on their PKers to kill Ihlrath after Ihlrath killed their Ragers). Again, someone can hardly be called immoral for questioning or being slow to comply with a rule that is imposed without notice and apparently bars behavior to which they were previously accustomed, and in which they see no inherent evil. Especially not in a game.

> > 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.

> > 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.

> > Since then, I've witnessed all manner of hypocrisy from members of the immortal staff, and it colors the way in which I perceive the game. Examples, with details removed to protect the "innocent":

> > High-level Immortals sitting around in Asgaard chatting about their mortals in the same cabal, deciding to log on together and kick some ass, but making sure to stagger their log-ins by 5 or 10 minutes so it doesn't appear too blatant. How many times have you heard IRC/ICQ, and those who frequent it, decried for promoting this sort of thing?

> > Immortals sharing "classified" information without hesitation with mortal friends, girlfriends, or potential girlfriends. A natural impulse to be sure... who's going to say "No, I can't talk to you about the game" to someone sitting across a dinner table from you? And who could resist the temptation to win the trust and affections of someone by proving your willingness to confide in them? Or in other instances, knowing people will think you're cool if you give them the inside scoop, and then not wanting to suddenly seem like a bad guy by saying "no." Nothing wrong with just wanting to be liked... right? Am I saying the Immortals who have engaged in this behavior are immoral for doing so? No, that would contradict my earlier points above. But they ARE immoral for being hypocritical, violating the very same rules that they have crafted, which are the subject of so much punishment and sermonizing.

> > Immortals giving quest skills, leadership positions, and other benefits to characters belonging to mortal and immortal friends, and in some cases almost exclusively to such persons. Similar to the above. Again, an obvious conflict of interests and hypocrisy.

> > Immortals holding grudges against players, punishing their characters without foundation in the form of rules violations, or a past history of such. In short, biased treatment on the grounds of personal dislike.

> > The list goes on, but that's enough for the purposes of the point I am striving to make. The immortals still run a great game, and I certainly haven't come across better in my years on the 'net, but that does not exempt them from common scrutiny of their actions and their characters, and certainly not when they would apply such to the players. An Immortal's word is only dogma within the roleplaying confines of CF... don't forget that.

> > I, for one, enjoyed the game a lot more before I knew any of the above. But I don't regret knowing it, because really, ignorance isn't bliss. And it's why I'm not planning on returning to CF--escapism just isn't the same when it's inextricably intertwined with the pettiness, politicking, and flaws that are what I'm trying to escape from in the first place.

> > My intent isn't to spoil anyone's fun, but rather perhaps to shed some light on the content I see before me. It's hard to silently accept the naive idolization of the Immortal staff, which is only a step below the "Lord xxxxx, might I ask thee a question?" posts. I'm not saying not to be grateful for the hard work put in by the Immortal staff without fiscal compensation, but also not to be so naive as to assume that there aren't other forms of subtler compensation, or to assume that their work as immortals in any way reflects upon the characters of the people behind the wizlist. An (IMM) tag next to a post entitles the poster to speak with an air of authority regarding issues such as game mechanics, upcoming plans for CF, downtime, and so forth. And please, treat them as authorities on such matters. Just stop and think for a moment, and consider whether or not you're acquiescing to their superiority in non game-related matters as well.

> > Thank you to the one or two people who have read this far, I appreciate it. Furthermore, I'll be damned if I'm going to proofread the above in this tiny text box, so any criticisms of spelling or grammar will be met with a trouting. :P

>
> >
> > PS: Proud Blade, in the future, kindly refrain from addressing my girlfriend as "dearest." Thanks.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail:
Subject:
Comments:	> > > This is going to be part diatribe, and partly a response to the discussion concerning permgrouping, the CF rules in general, and the extent to which moral character on a higher level comes into play. > > > Proud Blade wrote: > > > "The IMMs spend a lot of time creating and maintaining the dynamic environment that is CF. They do it for free. All they ask of you is that you obey a one page list of rules. As long as you do that, you get to play for free. Why is this difficult? Why -should- they let people play who cheat, and cheapen the game for other people?" > > > Obviously, multicharring, equipment swapping, scouting, acting upon purely OOC impulses, and so forth, are cheating and detrimental to the game. Not a single person has argued that any of the above should be allowed, nor do I think anyone would seriously presume to. People want to follow the rules, perhaps because they idealistically (naively?) believe, as you do, that some greater, higher principle is thereby upheld, or simply perhaps because they do not like having the characters in which they have invested dozens--or hundreds--of hours denied. > > > 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. > > > 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. > > > In defense of "Wondering" and later on, Graham, who did not perhaps phrase their points in as clear and conciliatory a manner as possible: neither of them were saying anything along the lines of "but I <i>have</i> to cheat or this game is just no fun!" They were explaining their personal situations and asking how they might best stay within the rules that have been established by the immortals. It is <i>not</i> reasonable to expect that anyone who has a friend who plays CF should immediately cease all interaction with said friend--perhaps work out alternating shifts during which they permit each other to utilize the campus computer lab, and tread cautiously in any conversations, lest the topic of the game arise. Realistically, all he was saying is that it is a given that friends are going to talk about the game at least from time to time, and he then proceeded to ask to what extent he has to bend over backwards in order not to be denied for "permagrouping." > > > The real answer to this question is: treat someone whom you know in real life (or on IRC) just like you would anyone else in the game, and you'll do just fine. Don't rank and group with them exclusively, make sure to separate knowledge that you might possess OOC about each other from what your characters would know IC, and so forth. Exclusively being the key word in the above. A bolt from the heavens isn't going to strike anyone who ever glances at someone they know outside of the game. It only becomes a problem when it either serves to give you a marked advantage over other players as a result of your connections (PK squads, mostly), or when you limit your interactions to this narrow circle and cease contributing anything to the game as a whole. (For example: Player A logs on, you ask Player A to group, Player A tells you "I'm busy, maybe later", Players B & C log on from the same site, ABC get together, etc.) > > > 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. > > > First, on what basis do we presume that morality or the lack thereof have anything at all to do with one's willingness to adhere to an arbitrary set of rules promulgated by people who are not necessarily our betters? Idealism, morality, and other such lofty notions need not enter the picture at all in this matter. The people whose morality was questioned never suggested doing anything at the expense of the enjoyment of others, but merely wanted to understand whether their harmless behavior was prohibited by the rules, and if so, whether that was really in keeping with the immortals' intent. > > > Secondly, this is indeed a game, and one of the most appealing concepts entailed in this game is the escapism it offers. In theory, this escapism extends only to the characters that are roleplayed, but in reality the player himself/herself is also thinking and functioning outside of his normal day-to-day existence. It is not hard to imagine someone who follows a strict moral code in his day-to-day existence, but doesn't especially care about the restrictions imposed upon him when he plays a computer game over the Internet. Now, you could argue that he's failing to consider the impact of his actions upon other people, and that's a valid argument. But that's an oversight he's making, not a character flaw. In the particular case of permagrouping, it is something that was basically allowed until quite recently. Even the blatant, blatant SMUG groups (Cezaar/Jebediah/Zimmeron, Vargas/Sabas/Stiles, etc.) didn't get denied for permagrouping. When they did get denied, it was for breaking the rules about multicharring (logging on their PKers to kill Ihlrath after Ihlrath killed their Ragers). Again, someone can hardly be called immoral for questioning or being slow to comply with a rule that is imposed without notice and apparently bars behavior to which they were previously accustomed, and in which they see no inherent evil. Especially not in a game. > > > 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. > > > 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. > > > Since then, I've witnessed all manner of hypocrisy from members of the immortal staff, and it colors the way in which I perceive the game. Examples, with details removed to protect the "innocent": > > > High-level Immortals sitting around in Asgaard chatting about their mortals in the same cabal, deciding to log on together and kick some ass, but making sure to stagger their log-ins by 5 or 10 minutes so it doesn't appear too blatant. How many times have you heard IRC/ICQ, and those who frequent it, decried for promoting this sort of thing? > > > Immortals sharing "classified" information without hesitation with mortal friends, girlfriends, or potential girlfriends. A natural impulse to be sure... who's going to say "No, I can't talk to you about the game" to someone sitting across a dinner table from you? And who could resist the temptation to win the trust and affections of someone by proving your willingness to confide in them? Or in other instances, knowing people will think you're cool if you give them the inside scoop, and then not wanting to suddenly seem like a bad guy by saying "no." Nothing wrong with just wanting to be liked... right? Am I saying the Immortals who have engaged in this behavior are immoral for doing so? No, that would contradict my earlier points above. But they ARE immoral for being hypocritical, violating the very same rules that they have crafted, which are the subject of so much punishment and sermonizing. > > > Immortals giving quest skills, leadership positions, and other benefits to characters belonging to mortal and immortal friends, and in some cases almost exclusively to such persons. Similar to the above. Again, an obvious conflict of interests and hypocrisy. > > > Immortals holding grudges against players, punishing their characters without foundation in the form of rules violations, or a past history of such. In short, biased treatment on the grounds of personal dislike. > > > The list goes on, but that's enough for the purposes of the point I am striving to make. The immortals still run a great game, and I certainly haven't come across better in my years on the 'net, but that does not exempt them from common scrutiny of their actions and their characters, and certainly not when they would apply such to the players. An Immortal's word is only dogma within the roleplaying confines of CF... don't forget that. > > > I, for one, enjoyed the game a lot more before I knew any of the above. But I don't regret knowing it, because really, ignorance isn't bliss. And it's why I'm not planning on returning to CF--escapism just isn't the same when it's inextricably intertwined with the pettiness, politicking, and flaws that are what I'm trying to escape <i>from</i> in the first place. > > > My intent isn't to spoil anyone's fun, but rather perhaps to shed some light on the content I see before me. It's hard to silently accept the naive idolization of the Immortal staff, which is only a step below the "Lord xxxxx, might I ask thee a question?" posts. I'm not saying not to be grateful for the hard work put in by the Immortal staff without fiscal compensation, but also not to be so naive as to assume that there aren't other forms of subtler compensation, or to assume that their work as immortals in any way reflects upon the characters of the people behind the wizlist. An (IMM) tag next to a post entitles the poster to speak with an air of authority regarding issues such as game mechanics, upcoming plans for CF, downtime, and so forth. And please, treat them as authorities on such matters. Just stop and think for a moment, and consider whether or not you're acquiescing to their superiority in non game-related matters as well. > > > Thank you to the one or two people who have read this far, I appreciate it. Furthermore, I'll be damned if I'm going to proofread the above in this tiny text box, so any criticisms of spelling or grammar will be met with a trouting. :P > > > > > > > > PS: Proud Blade, in the future, kindly refrain from addressing my girlfriend as "dearest." Thanks.

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