Slynky's Demise

[Lord Chane]

geoschmo said:
I have occasionally allowed them to feel like we are allies, while being intentionally vague about how long it is to Last.

A bit of a grey area. I wouldn't have a problem with that so long as there was some sort of notice given when the alliance is being terminated. Something more than a fleet showing up over one of my planets and a note saying that the alliance is over.

geoschmo said:
People will very often hear what they want, regardless of what you actually say. My sins would be more of ommision in that case.

A player certainly can't be held responsible for what someone else chooses to believe.

geoschmo said:
I have on occasion enterered into negotiations for a treaty with absolutly no intention of joining an alliance. Just to buy time so that I can attack. Is it bad faith negotiations? Perhaps. But it's negotiations. It wasn't an actual alliance.

That is most definitely part of the game.

geoschmo said:
I might have a person I am in alliance with, and give "aid and comfort" to their enemy. Not that I would neccesarily tell them what my allies plans were, but I might also "forget" to mention to my ally that there might be a build up of this third parties forces in an undefended sector.

Another gray area. But I'd tend to say that's acceptable depending on the terms of the treaty. For example, you and I have a treaty in TGE and I wouldn't expect you to warn me if someone was going to attack me.

geoschmo said:The main thing that is an irritant to me is when you join an alliance with someone and they assume you are joined at the hip. If you don't give them every piece of technology you have they feel like you are not being a good ally. Mainly because I think that style of play is simply boring, but also because I don't want to help them that much. And you always have to attack everyone they are at war with? Even when it's not in my interests? That's no fun.

I agree completely, unless the alliance specifically calls for that sort of thing. I prefer to use alliances to secure my borders so I can use the forces that would otherwise have to defend them to attack someone I'm not allied to elsewhere.

geoschmo said:
Your real life examples are most definetly apples to oranges. Honestly I am strugling not to be personally offended at some of your comments here. If you think just because I'd break some of your own personal unwritten rules in an SE4 game that I would be the kind of unethical person that would injure another human being, you really are way off base.

I'll start by saying I'm sorry if I've offended you. I've tried to write everything I've said to take issue with the opinion you expressed and not you personally. There's a difference between the thought and the person who expressed it. I've made no personal attacks, accused you of nothing, and stuck to disagreeing with the opinion and not the author. I can't help the fact that you happened to have expressed the opinion I disagree with. You expressed dismay "... that few people get the same satisfaction from this style of play that I do. So I find that people don't want to be allies with me to begin with because of what they have heard abotu me form other players, or comments I've made in the forum." By this I assume that you are bothered that more people don't adhere to "your own personal unwritten rules in an SE4 game". I'm merely expressing my dismay that the style of play you described is appealing. Am I not as entitled to my opinion as you to yours? I haven't said you are an unethical person, nor have I said that you'd injure another human being. I don't know you but I've no reason to believe that you are or that you would. What I have said is that some of our personality shows through in the way we play, probably even when we are role playing. I've also said that folks who truly believe in winning at all costs in a game probably don't end it there. It's just not in their personality. I've also mentioned several times that games specifically marked as role-playing are exempt from those thoughts. There have been several counter Posts suggesting that I learn to separate what occurs in the game from real life. Perhaps you can help me with this one. How do I pick out those players who are just role playing from those players who really are prepared to win at any cost, whether it's in the game or real life? Surely in your years of playing and running the SEIV site you must have met a few real jerks. Do I take it on faith? Do I ask the person and then believe their response without question? You see what I mean? Have you ever met people who in real life will say or do anything to get what they want? Slander a co-worker, let a project fail to make themselves look better, take credit for someone else's work, lied to a girl so they could get her, etc., etc., etc. Do you think that sort of person might also be the kind of person who'd screw an ally over in SEIV? Are you one of those kinds of people? Certainly not. Is everyone who espouses a win at all costs attitude a nice guy? Certainly not. The key is once I've been betrayed by an someone I trusted, in this case an ally, how can I ever trust them again? And unless someone can share the means of determining who is role playing and who is just letting their personality show through, I can't tell what kind of person I'm truly dealing with.

geoschmo said:
Puposly hurting someone in a sporting event is wrong.

I agree. But it goes on all the time and it goes on in the name of "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing".

geoschmo said:
It is most definetly against the rules in every organized sport I know of.

There are a lot of grey areas in sports rules. And even where something is clearly against the rules it's oftimes difficult to say whether it was intentional or an accident. If I have the basketball and an opponent is trying to slap it away from me while I'm moving it around, who's to say whether the broken finger they just got was on purpose or just an accident? Do you watch football? Ever see a late hit on the QB that puts him out of action for a bit? Was it intentional or an accident?

geoschmo said:
Any player that would do it, or coach that would encourage it has no business being in teh sport. Whether or not you could do it and get away with it is possible, but doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

I agree. So why do players do it and why would a coach tolerate it or tell them to do it? Because right or wrong, it's part of the game. The same as steroids, illegal performance enhancers, practicing early, recruiting violations, covering up sexual misconduct, having someone else take tests for an athlete, and so on. It's all become part of the game. And why? To win! And I'm sure that many of those coaches and athletes who indulge in these behaviors are otherwise nice guys and gals. They behave one way in a game and completely different outside of the game.

geoschmo said:That's the point I'm trying to make to you here. I'm not talking about doing stuff in SE4 games that is wrong, but being able to get away with it. I'm talking about doing stuff that is perfectly acceptable, but that you somehow have decided is wrong.

I understand that we aren't talking about cheating or a clear rules violation. But I think there is a difference between being acceptable and being the right thing to do. That's my opinion, no one has to agree with me, I'm not trying to convert anyone. I just don't see it the same way.

geoschmo said:
And your guy that left Clevland and went to Salt Lake, I don't know anything about pro basketball, but that's not ethics guy. That's business. Pro sports is millionaire players negotiating with millionaire owners.

Sorry, I can't agree. It is ethics. If you tell someone you are going to do something, then you should do it. I don't care if it hurts. I don't care if you got a better offer. You gave your word. Now, if there's an extinuating circumstance that prevents you from following through, then that's a different issue. Ann Landers said it quite nicely in her Ten Commandments of Getting Along with People, "Make promises sparingly, and keep them faithfully, no matter what it costs." The one thing we all have that we can truly call our own is our integrity. It is just flat wrong to tell someone, even a millionaire owner, that you're going to stay and then leave. Boozer used them in every negative sense of the word. Not knowing whether you were familiar with this incident I didn't go into a lot of detail in my initial post. So, let me fill in some of that detail and see if you still think it isn't an ethical issue. The player was in an option year. Cleveland could pick up the option or let the player become a free agent. They could have picked up the option and paid him something like 6-7 million for the year. He'd had a really good year though. So, the Cleveland owner and coach talked to him and told him that they wanted to reward him with a new contract worth something like $48 million over I think three or four years. To do that though they'd have to let the option pass and allow him to become a free agent. Would he be willing to do that? Absolutely, he said. Besides, he and his wife loved Cleveland, loved the fans, and really wanted to stay there. So, the Cavs let the option lapse, making him a free agent. He immediately signed an offer sheet from Salt Lake for $68 million. Now, I can't know what happened behind the scenes, but that surely looks to me like he stuck a knife in Cleveland's back. I'd say he had it all plotted out ahead of time. To me the whole thing has ethics written all over it.

geoschmo said:
If you were no longer happy at your job and got a better offer wouldn't you go?

Yep. But I wouldn't lie to do it. And I especially wouldn't do it on the heels of my employer going out of their way for me. The millionaire owner in this case could have just exercised the option and locked him in for another year at the lower salary. It was a cheap shot on the player's part and he must have felt so too. He refused all interviews on the subject afterwards. I'd expect if he felt he'd done the right thing he'd have been more than happy to get up and defend what he'd done. As a side note, his leaving hurt the team, hurt the fans, hurt the owner, hurt the coach, and likely marked him as a mercenary who puts his agenda ahead of everything else. Oh, and by all reports the fans loved him. He was a nice guy who readily signed autographs, chatted with fans at courtside, and so on. I mention that as an example of how difficult it can be to pick out the nice guys from those who put their personal agenda in front of all other considerations. Oh, and should anyone answer that it's acceptable when there's that much money involved then I submit the following joke:

A man sees a beautiful woman in a bar. He walks up to her and strikes up a conversation. After chatting a bit he asks her if she'd be willing to sleep with him for a million dollars. "Sure!", she says. "How about for five dollars?", the man asks. The woman is outraged! "Of course not!", she replies, "What sort of girl do you think I am?" Smiling, the man answers, "We've already determined that. Now we're just haggling over the price."

geoschmo said:
Yes, it's the rule that says "DON'T CHEAT". What you describe is not a strategy or a tactic. It's not a grey area and cannot be justified. It's flat out cheating. You won't be commended for your cleverness, and we won't debate whether or not it's acceptable. You will be Banned for life from playing on PBW and blacklisted from PBEM games. It's not at all the same as espionage and it's way way outside the lines.

I agree. Have you seen the movie "A Few Good Men"? If so, remember the scene where Kevin Bacon's character has just finished his examination of a coporal where he's been asking the corporal to show him where in the SOP for GITMO it talks about Code Reds? The corporal says that Code Reds aren't in the SOP. In his cross Tom Cruise asks him where in the SOP is the section on how to find the mess hall. The coporal says that isn't in the SOP either. Cruise asks him if he hasn't eaten at all since arriving at the base. No, the corporal says, he just followed the other guys and found the mess hall. The point is that not everything is an official rule. So, just play the Devil's advocate, can you point me to where in the SEIV or PBW rules it specifically says that what I described is illegal and forbidden? My point is that not everything that's wrong is a rule, written down for all to see. Sometimes things are just accepted as wrong.

geoschmo said:
As far as competing in real life for a girl, or a job. In that case, yes, someone's going to get the girl or the job and someone isn't. But it doesn't mean you have carte blanche to do anything you want to the other person. You still have to follow the rules of soceity. You do the best to sell yourself, and hope they pick you. But even there it's not a zero-sum game. There are always more jobs, and more girls out there.

I only offered those thoughts to refute these statements:

geoschmo said:For me to do well in life I don not have to hurt those around me. For me to win the game, those around me must lose.

Sometimes winning in life means others have to lose too.

geoschmo said:As you gain life experience and perspective you will learn that.

Either you're older than I think you are or I'm not as young as you apparently think I am. I'm 47, Geo. My perspective is based on my experiences over those years. I know I still have a lot of learning to do though, and I don't mean that sarcastically. I work on that every day.

As you said, I suspect we really aren't that far apart on what behaviors we do and don't find acceptable in the game. More a matter of definitions and semantics I think. I don't think you and I have been in that many games together. You've never done anything I found objectionable and I've never heard anything negative about you. In fact, I was surprised when I read your post, the one that got me writing these Posts, because from what I know about you it seemed out of character. I've never met you and only know you from the limited dealings we've had in SEIV and here on the forum. That aside, you strike me as a nice guy. I don't have any problem with you and the bad traits and examples I've used in this thread were to describe win at all cost personalities, not you. Despite your post, I don't think that you are truly a win at all costs player. I can't express my opinion though without making reference to your post. Please remember though that it's the issue I'm attacking, not you as a person.

[Lord Chane]

Roanon said:
But you have left a huge grey area. There still is a difference between using an alliance to move fleets in the systems of the soon-to-be enemy, braking an alliance without notice, or declaring every action XXX turns earlier, for example. This attacking without notice is getting even greyer when there have been tensions before, and you see large fleets assembled, and even expect an assault by your ally.

Moving fleets up sounds fine to me. If you know an alliance is about to end, then I've no problem with getting ready. If there have been tensions between you and an ally, or you see large fleets assembling and your ally can't offer a plausible explanation, then you certainly have every right to defend yourself, including a preemtive strike. An ally who you've had problems with who is taking belligerent actions isn't an ally and doesn't deserve to be treated as one. I have just such a problem in a game I'm playing. A player I have a treaty with is piling up ships in a system that I own exclusively. No explanation why. I'm not threatening them, although I too have a fleet there that they might pervceive as a threat. Or perhaps they're concerned about other players drifting in and colonizing their territory. But it makes me nervous and if I can't get a proper explanation, then I guess I'll have to take action. I see that as totally justified. Now, I could use their ships being in my space as sufficient provocation and just attack. But I don't think that's the proper way to handle things.

Roanon said:
Another problem is the term "ally". In most games, you usually are "allied" via a TR treaty with everyone you are not at war with, just because of the mutual benefits of such a treaty. I do not consider such a mere formality a real alliance, for example.

In that a TR treaty gives your treaty partner access to your space, I have to consider it a real treaty. I wish that everything below MA did't work that way or that the game employed a "borders" concept which treaty partners below MA would recognize.

Roanon said:
I also think it takes a bit the tension, and thereby the fun, out of the game if you can rely 100% on everyone else in the game. Political maneuvering is nice . But downright lying, and what else you described as "betrayal" is something different. Still, there is not only black or white, I think we agreee which is which, but what about the grey areas, which are the biggest? I do not think there are general, "right" rules of behaviour for any situation in the game. And no one has the right to impose his personal, subjective view of these grey areas on every other player. This is a matter of personal style.

I don't think being an honest player has to decrease the fun. In one game you and I might be allies, while in another we might be deadly enemies. One of us might string the other along on the issue of signing a treaty, as Geo described in one of his Posts. We might only agree to a treaty for a limited amount of time. And there could be more games specifcally billed as being role-playing games where I've already said that anything is fair game. In such a game I might even stab you in the back but you'd know it was because I was playing my part and not because I have a win at all costs approach to playing. Finally, yes it is a matter of personal style. I'm not telling anyone how to play, not setting any rules about what can and cannot be done, not even passing judgment on someone who chooses to play the backstabbing style of game. All I'm saying is that I don't agree with that style and that any player who employs it shouldn't be surprised if I refuse to have anything to do with them in a future game. It's their choice to play that way, it is mine to never trust them again.

[tesco samoa]

Lord Chance. What I mean about determining the difference between in game and out of game.

Example. Looking at what I post at shrapnel and using ingame to proove to other players that I cannot be trusted and should be taken out. Getting threating emails because of ingame stuff , Getting slandered because of ingame stuff.

To me it is a clean slate with every player every game. I read an empires descriptions. If they state they are a filthy backstabbing race... I heed the warning. Early in the game. If it is a peaceful race.... and they do not play it or there is no rp from that race... I watch out...

Some players i like to play with due to their rping... some because I know I will have good fights with. That is a fortunate side product of getting to know players. But I still clean the slate with them.

But unfortantly not everyone plays to win. I know I do not play to win. I play for enjoyment. Which is created due to ingame experiences. Trechery , Alliances, Backstabbing, Role Playing, Harsh decissions, political victories and defeats. They are all what makes a game. The final outcome is some one has to mop the map. But getting it dirty is where the fun is at. I find if you play a game not caring if you win or lose really allows you to enjoy the game as a game.

I do not understand this idea that if a player plays one way then they must be like this in real life. People act differently with each social society that they are a member of.

Take Geo as an example playing a game of SEIV on PBW , posting on shrapnel and (making up the rest ) going to work and then coming home to his family and then going out to play a game of ball.

You have many social socities that Geo is a member of here. What Geo choses to do in the one game of SEIV such as playing a game to win via game routes to win is 100% socially acceptable within a seiv game between the players who are playing the game. In the other socities that Geo is involved in these activites are unacceptable or not goals that one strives to achieve in those social socities. ( typing bad as usual ) Perhaps the closest thing would be his ball game. But that may just be a league of lob ball that he has decided to join for exercise and as a way to keep in touch with old friends. Then the goal would be to be competitive and enjoy an evening out that is healthy. Winning is a bonus and is only important for a few games during the playoffs. Guess what I am trying to say here is that in a game of SEIV Geo can be a SOB and this does not mean that in every other aspect of his life he must be a SOB. We are lucky that Geo is what he is in the PBW world and in the shrapnel world. He is opinionated. He is of a strong character who will post what his opinions are and will back them up. He will reach out and attempt to help people when he feels he can or if he feels there is a chance to make someone enjoy their day. Geo also devotes quite a bit of his time to the community and does this knowing that it can affect the other aspects of his life. This is the geo that i know ( as well as the in game one ) As for the other parts of his life. I do not know them. Nor do I need to know them unless we end up neighbours or work together. Then I would get to know those aspects as well in our relationship. But I am quite happy with shrapnel , PBW and gaming. And I am very glad that I have had the oppertuntity to get to know Geo in those parts of his world. Likewise I am sure he is happy to know me in those aspects of my life.

I also know that I do not take one game of seiv and paint a picture of geo outside of the game. Due to the fact that it is a game. And nothing more. And one game at that. If you happen to see a pattern... You have the option to go on that in the next game and miss out on some aspects of that game's story because it is the way you play. Again I do not play that way. And treat each game differently depending on the race I play.

The Last few games I have played the Nostro... Who seem to like politics far more than fighting and will do anything to keep the peace in the galaxy.

I also play a race called the Augmentation who hate everyone but ingame story has caused the race to work with one of its enemies to defeat an even more powerful enemy. ( it occured while we were at war. A more powerful enemy came in and attacked... ) This relationship has streched to fighitng another powerful group of allied races... Due to the crazyiness of our partners young and inexperienced leader. but the augmentation know that the relationship could end depending on who is in charge ( 4 governments in 210 turns )

I aslo play a race called SRM-10 who would sell your empires planets for a few destroyers if they got the chance. They would then attempt to tie you down with years of paperwork to pay for the transaction.

They are all different and I am glad that the people who play in games with me give me a chance every game to develop the empire and to develop the story that unfolds for that game.

For it would not be fun to enter a game and go. Hmm.... Lets hope I end up beside the following players because they play like this everygame so I can work to get rid of that player who I do not like from six games ago.

It is late and I was paged for work while on vacation.

Geo... Sorry for using you as an example. And if I offened please forgive.

Slynky I am sad and disappointed to see you leave. It was good knowing you here and at pbw. I will miss reading your Posts.

Roanon.... you do not like having to agree with me

[geoschmo]

No problem Tesco. You have actually done a better job of describing what I was trying to say myself.

Lord Chane, I know you didn't say that specifically I was a bad person. What you were doing was making a broad generalization. You were saying if a person would do A then therefore they would also do B. Since I admit freely that I do A, by your logic you must think I am capable of doing B.

You don't owe me an appology. You didn't say I would do B. I was being overly sensitive. Sorry about that.

[Lord Chane]

geoschmo said:
Lord Chane, I know you didn't say that specifically I was a bad person. What you were doing was making a broad generalization. You were saying if a person would do A then therefore they would also do B. Since I admit freely that I do A, by your logic you must think I am capable of doing B.

You don't owe me an appology. You didn't say I would do B. I was being overly sensitive. Sorry about that.

I'm not making a generalization so much as I am connecting one set of observed behavior to a set of expected behavior. In my experience those who truly espouse the win at all costs philosophy are also likely, but not certain, to want to win at all costs in the real world. Of course not all people who would win at all costs in a game would also do so in the real world. But how can I tell one from the other? Let me couch it another way, and this is just an example to make a point not an attempt to connect anyone to what I'm describing. Let's say you and I are walking down the street and we see a skinhead in a Nazi uniform. Are you saying that based on your knowledge of Nazi, neo-Nazi, behavior that you wouldn't develop a certain set of expectations about the guy? You'd feel perfectly comfortable walking up to him, talking to him, having some sort of meaningful interaction with him? I suspect you wouldn't. I know I wouldn't. Of course it's entirely possible that he's on his way to a costume party. Or he could be an actor heading to a set. Maybe even a teacher heading to school (yes, I had a humanities teacher in high school who came to school once or twice a year in a Nazi uniform, playing the part of a die hard Nazi to give his classes first hand knowledge of what it'd be like to be a Nazi - all this with the blessing of the school district). But from a distance and without any additional information it's pretty much impossible to tell. Some players who would stab an ally in a game of SEIV are just role playing. Others would likely stab a friend or collegue in the back in real life as readily as they would an ally in SEIV. I think odds are that a person who plays that way in a game is more likely, although not assured, to behave the same way in real life.

I believe it's an established fact that the anonymity the internet provides encourages people to speak more freely. Simply put, people feel freer to speak their mind in email and in forums when they don't have to confront the person they are talking to, the recipient may not be able to identify them at all, and there is a vastly reduced chance of incuring consequences for what they say or the way they say it. If we can accept that as valid, then I submit that a person who speaks very carefully on the internet is also more likely to speak very carefully in person. It would then seem to follow that a person who speaks with total disregard in person would be vastly more likely to "let it all hang out" on the internet. So doesn't it seem reasonable that a person who would behave badly in real life is more likely to do so in a game, where there are fewer ramifications for their actions?

[geoschmo]

Lord Chane said:
Let me couch it another way, and this is just an example to make a point not an attempt to connect anyone to what I'm describing. Let's say you and I are walking down the street and we see a skinhead in a Nazi uniform. Are you saying that based on your knowledge of Nazi, neo-Nazi, behavior that you wouldn't develop a certain set of expectations about the guy? You'd feel perfectly comfortable walking up to him, talking to him, having some sort of meaningful interaction with him? I suspect you wouldn't. I know I wouldn't.

What! Now you are calling me a Nazi?!?

No, of course if I encountered someone dressed like this in a public place I would have concerns. And it would be for good reason. People often dress in such a way to demonstrate their affinity for that particular set of beliefs. Not everyone that dresses that way believes that way, and I wouldn't support tossing people in jail based on the way they dress, but it would give me a preconceived notion about the person.

But again, your example is flawed. We are talking about a game, while you are giving real-world analogies. If I was playing a strategy set in WWII era earth, and an opponent chose to play as a Nazi country, I would not take this as an indication that they were sypathetic to those political beliefs.

[Lord Chane]

tesco samoa said:
Example. Looking at what I post at shrapnel and using ingame to proove to other players that I cannot be trusted and should be taken out. Getting threating emails because of ingame stuff , Getting slandered because of ingame stuff.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. If you betrayed me in a non role-playing game, then I might post something on the forum pointing out that you had betrayed me. I think it's only fair to warn others if a player elects to play that way. I did that after I was badly betrayed in the Mediocrity game. I would never send anyone a threatening email. In fact I posted what I did concerning the Mediocrity incident because I didn't want to send the other player anything that could be construed as negative or threatening to their personal email address. I know I wouldn't want to receive something like that, so I stuck to posting on the forum, a public place where they should feel less threatenend. And I didn't slander the other player. He used a treaty to launch a Pearl Harbor style attack on me. To compound my aggravation he was infinitely stronger than I was yet felt compelled to resort to this tactic to launch his attack. The analogy I'll use is that my empire was roughly like a medieval knight on horse back while his was like the latest M1 tank. There was no way for me to win, but he felt the need to sneak around and shoot me from behind just in case. Seems just a tad cowardly to me. So, I posted a forum message congratulating him on his spectactular victory. His answer was that he plays to win. Did I slander the other player? Only if the truth is slander. Of course the other player wasn't happy with my post. In my opinion that was because he didn't like having other players know that he employs that tactic. After all, it's much more difficult to stab an ally if you can't sneak up on them.

tesco samoa said:
To me it is a clean slate with every player every game.

Then you are a better man than I. I don't know how you can trust a player who has betrayed you in the past. If you and played several games and in each game I used and discarded you, you'd still be willing to ally with me in the next game? Sorry, I'm not that trusting.

tesco samoa said:
I read an empires descriptions. If they state they are a filthy backstabbing race... I heed the warning. Early in the game. If it is a peaceful race.... and they do not play it or there is no rp from that race... I watch out...

Well, many players don't write anything or use the stock write-up. I'm not clear on how I can tell if the racial description is what the player actually intends to use of if that too might be a deception.

tesco samoa said:
Some players i like to play with due to their rping... some because I know I will have good fights with. That is a fortunate side product of getting to know players. But I still clean the slate with them.

Same here, but I can't do the clean slate thing. From my perspective that's ignoring experiences and taking their behavior on faith. I'm not much on faith. I'm real big on empirical evidence.

tesco samoa said:
But unfortantly not everyone plays to win. I know I do not play to win.

I always play to win. There are just limits on what I'll do to achieve that goal. My behavior is more important to me than winning.

tesco samoa said:
I play for enjoyment. Which is created due to ingame experiences. Trechery , Alliances, Backstabbing, Role Playing, Harsh decissions, political victories and defeats. They are all what makes a game. The final outcome is some one has to mop the map. But getting it dirty is where the fun is at. I find if you play a game not caring if you win or lose really allows you to enjoy the game as a game.

Obviously, I can't agree completely. I don't think there's any glory in winning by betrayal. It's like a sucker punch, or shooting someone in the back. You risk virtually nothing and therefore gain virtually nothing.

tesco samoa said:
I do not understand this idea that if a player plays one way then they must be like this in real life. People act differently with each social society that they are a member of.

As Slynky said, if you don't have the same perspective then it's unlikely that I can explain it in a way that'll convey my position. I've tried using several different analogies, examples, logical connections, etc. To Subscribe to the idea that there's no correlation between a player's in game behavior and their out of game behavior, I'd have to believe that every player is able to completely divorce themselves from every experience, every bit of input, every bit of social conditioning, every feeling and emotion that they've had in real life. I'd have to believe that they can essentially create a completely new and entirely different personality every time they step into the game. Sorry, I can't do that and I can't fathom how anyone can. If you bring even one bit, no matter how small, of your true personality into the game, then you have just validated my position. The question then becomes how do otehr players separate your real personality traits from your in-game personality?

Take Geo as an example playing a game of SEIV on PBW , posting on shrapnel and (making up the rest ) going to work and then coming home to his family and then going out to play a game of ball.

tesco samoa said:Guess what I am trying to say here is that in a game of SEIV Geo can be a SOB and this does not mean that in every other aspect of his life he must be a SOB.

You are absolutely correct. Just because a player is an SOB in a game of SEIV doesn't mean that in other aspects of their life they must be an SOB. And I haven't said that they must be either. What I said is that I believe they are more likely to be an SOB in real life too. If I understand your position correctly, you see no correlation between in-game and out-of-game behaviors. I do see a correlation. I make that statement based on personal experiences, not on whim, or speculation. In some players the correlation is much stronger than in others. If you can accept that, then what's needed is a way to tell from a distance, without knowing the player concerned, how to tell how much of the in-game personality correlates with the player's real personality. Can you tell me how to do that?

tesco samoa said:
We are lucky that Geo is what he is in the PBW world and in the shrapnel world.

Yes, we are. But this isn't about Geo. It's about the position that Geo articulated. I've tried to make that clear. I'm attacking what he said, not the man himself. We can agree to disagree. Slynky and I are best friends, but we don't always agree and have had some interesting and empassioned discussions on issues we didn't see eye to eye on. But I don't take it personally when he thinks that my position doesn't make sense and I don't believe he is offended when I disagree with him. I can disagree with a person's position without finding the person disagreeable. Then again I can agree with a person's position while finding the person totally contemtable. Hitler was a terrible person, but not everything he did was terrible.

tesco samoa said:
For it would not be fun to enter a game and go. Hmm.... Lets hope I end up beside the following players because they play like this everygame so I can work to get rid of that player who I do not like from six games ago.

I'm not advocating carrying a grudge from game to game and playing to annihilate a player who wronged me a half-dozen games ago. In a non-RP game though, if a player things I'm going to treaty up with or trust them after they've betrayed me in another non-RP game, then they're being naive. If I can bring about their demise, then I'd be happy to do so, but not at the cost of my game.

tesco samoa said:
It is late and I was paged for work while on vacation.

Hopefully they didn't keep you at work too long.

[Fyron]

Well, many players don't write anything or use the stock write-up. I'm not clear on how I can tell if the racial description is what the player actually intends to use of if that too might be a deception.

The sort of player that takes the time to write a customized race description is the sort of player that roleplays their empire... Most people that write such a description will try their hardest to act that way in-game...

To Subscribe to the idea that there's no correlation between a player's in game behavior and their out of game behavior, I'd have to believe that every player is able to completely divorce themselves from every experience, every bit of input, every bit of social conditioning, every feeling and emotion that they've had in real life. I'd have to believe that they can essentially create a completely new and entirely different personality every time they step into the game. Sorry, I can't do that and I can't fathom how anyone can. If you bring even one bit, no matter how small, of your true personality into the game, then you have just validated my position.

Ah, but many people can... it is what roleplaying is all about. Their life experiences and all that might subconsciously determine the types of characters they chose to roleplay, but the roles they choose to play don't define everything about them.

[Lord Chane]

geoschmo said:
No, of course if I encountered someone dressed like this in a public place I would have concerns. And it would be for good reason. People often dress in such a way to demonstrate their affinity for that particular set of beliefs. Not everyone that dresses that way believes that way, and I wouldn't support tossing people in jail based on the way they dress, but it would give me a preconceived notion about the person.

The preconceived notion is all I was going for.

geoschmo said:
But again, your example is flawed. We are talking about a game, while you are giving real-world analogies.

As I said to Tesco in my Last post to him, you apparently see a clear separation between the player and the position they play in the game, even in non-RP games. I don't and no one has offered any objective evidence that there is such a separation. I submit to you that it is pretty much impossible not to carry over some of our personalities into the game. If you agree that players carry over even one small attribute from their real personality into the game, then you invalidate the clear separation hypothesis. It's then a matter of determining how much of the player's real personality leaks over into their in-game personna. And I disagree about my examples being flawed. My point was that people have preconceived notions and that they have them in games as well as out.

geoschmo said:
If I was playing a strategy set in WWII era earth, and an opponent chose to play as a Nazi country, I would not take this as an indication that they were sypathetic to those political beliefs.

No, neither would I. Any more than I would think that an actor who plays Hitler is a Nazi sympathizer or that one who plays Jesus is a godly or devoutly religious man. It's a role. I've already said that I've no problem with what someone does in a role-playing game. They should play their role. I played a Nazgul position in a Lord of the Rings play-by-mail game once and I tried to stay in character. Would anyone trust one of the Dark Lord's servants? But unless the other game players had never read, seen, or heard of LOTR before, then they knew what to expect. Is every game of SEIV an RP game? In my opinion no and that notion is supported by the fact that some games announce themselves as being RP and others don't. If they were all RP, then there's be no reason to announce some games as RP. So for me there's a clear difference between someone playing a role and just being a player in a game.

[geoschmo]

Lord Chane said:
As I said to Tesco in my Last post to him, you apparently see a clear separation between the player and the position they play in the game, even in non-RP games. I don't and no one has offered any objective evidence that there is such a separation.

I do agree there is a point at which behavior of players in a game is reflective of their character, or lack of it out of the game. And in that regard your examples do have some merit. There is a line that a person can cross while playing a game which will cause me to question them as a person. Where we disagree I suppose is exactly where that line is drawn.

I would like to keep it simple and just say that for me the line is cheating. Of course that would require everyone to have the same definition of what is cheating, and then we start our debate all over again. I guess maybe that's the point you've been trying to make all along.