Please comment on an incident

[unmerged(21937)]

*points out to post #23*

(semi) On Topic: Try to not get yourself warned people.

 

[arcorelli]

So you see, the reason I paused was for you (and me) and the rest of the crew, to try and save my participation in the game. I behaved just like I would like any other fellow gamer to behave. Trying to calm down and use reason. Do you not agree?

Well, pausing is one of most annoying things people can do to a game -since for the rest of the crew is highly likely that your most relevant issue is very, vey non relevant.

And, in this case, all you need was talk to cheech, no need to pause (a private message saying that: I didn't realized that you were crashed and offering some compensation for damage was all that was needed).

So pausing the entire game for what was a matter to be discused by 2 players is annoying. And pausing after GM orders to unpause is breaking rules (since the first and most important rule in a GM game is: obey the GM even if you don't like the decision)

And anyway, why HG did not rehosted at once when a player in war crashed? (and HG was aware of crashing I think) That is standard procedure AFAIK.

 

[artemis667]

Mistakes happen... sometimes things can't be dealt with straight away... and sometimes a GM can't put his attention everywhere at once. Wherever possible, it's best just not to escalate these things and blow them up - because everyone involved almost always has the best intentions. An ancient Australian proverb further illuminates this: "Shit happens"

As for rules, the GM does have a right to bend rules when he deems that the situation demands it. Some GMs choose to not exercise that right, but it's there for them all - if you don't like how they do it, then you're entitled not to play in a game they run.

 

[unmerged(7276)]

I dont see anything wrong with threads like this as long as they are civil, which this one is.

Dan you dont seem to accept that you reaction to the HG argument was wrong. Whether or not what he said was unfair, breaking GM contract, or whatever. Leaving in the middle of a game is genrally recognised by the community as a no no and therefore you lost any morale high ground you may or may not have had.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Well, pausing is one of most annoying things people can do to a game -since for the rest of the crew is highly likely that your most relevant issue is very, vey non relevant.

As you can see it was not. Since the alternative was that I left the game. If you consider this to be "very, very non relevant", then I believe you are lacking somewhat in the emphatic quality I assume my fellow gamers posess.

It is also so that I have explained exactly this in detail above. A little bit surprising that you present this argument again. What you should do, if you take up this topic, is to argue why my argument is wrong. E.g. "I consider it trivial if a perm gets so annoyed at the behaviour of the GM that he wants to quit the game, because... etc"

And, in this case, all you need was talk to cheech, no need to pause (a private message saying that: I didn't realize that you were crashed and offering some compensation for damage was all that was needed).

1. I did speak to Cheech, as I did to speak to everone. All my messages were visible for the whole community, not one special person. Although they primarily aimed at HG since it was he that made made the derogatory statement that created this situation.

2. You seem to believe that my problem was that I had attacked Cheech. It was not. My problem was that the GM had broken the rules of the game by abusing me in the ingame chat. When that problem had been solved it was time to analyse the problem you aim at, what should be done about the fact that I had attacked Cheech, what compensation he should have from me. A minor problem in the circumstances because that was not a gamebreaking question for one of the players.

So pausing the entire game for what was a matter to be discused by 2 players is annoying

I have already explained this. See post 35.

And pausing after GM orders to unpause is breaking rules (since the first and most important rule in a GM game is: obey the GM even if you don't like the decision)

When a GM behaves like he did I believe myself to be outside of his jurisdiction because the contract between us has been broken, by him. I have much more fun things in life to do than participate in excercises were I am insulted. If insults like this were allowed, then I would not have quit (and I would probably never have entered the game at all). I always play according to the rules.

I will never obey a GM if he breaks the rules. If a judge/GM puts himself above the law he loses his legality and thus his role. If you disagree, then say so clearly.

The task of the GM is to make sure the rules are applied correctly. Not to execute some kind of dictatorial allreaching power over the players. Again, if you disagree with this, then clearly say so.

When people repeat this mantra "Always obey the GM" (implicitly: you did not Daniel, therefore you have erred) it amazes me that you do not see that you yourself do not really believe this. Just imagine the GM say e.g.: "send me 2000d immediately", and you said "why", and he said "because it is my birthday today". Then it would be apparent for you that you were not bound to do this. Thus the maxim "Always obey the GM" is invalid. Q.E.D.

IMO all too many of you just repeat what you were told instead of critically examine the statements. It was exactly the same with the maxim "never leave in the middle of a session, wait for a rehost" where I showed that in practice the reversed principle works better under certain circumstances (e.g. those existing in the actual case).

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Leaving in the middle of a game is genrally recognised by the community as a no no and therefore you lost any morale high ground you may or may not have had.

Well, we disagree on this Cheech. Read my response to Arco.

BTW, I appreciate you added "generally" as I understand this means you accept there are exceptions. Besides 1. sickness and similar obvious reasons I also believe a correct reason is if 2. an immediate departure from the game increases the equity of the gaming position, i.e. if that is most fair to the outcome of the game - as I explained in my previous post to you. And 3. I believe that whenever the GM starts violating the rules of the game any player can stop playing whenever he wishes to do so. He has not promised to do anything else than that.

 

[Wyvern]

Look Daniel, I can see why you would get upset at HG and from what you describe deservedly so, these things happen to the best of us and I'd be mad in such a situation, but please understand that your reaction wasn't the best - ie leaving mid-game/pausing. You can say you have a contract with the GM which has been broken all you like but it is also common courtesy to not spoil things for everyone else - call that a contract with the community if you like, I prefer to just call it good manners.

If you leave half way through a gaming session then it has 2 actions if you're at war like you were - One, an immediate rehost is required, and two a sub has to be found or the rest of the session cancelled.

Neither of those items are fair on anyone else in the game, ie the players who had nothing to do with your arguements with HG, and it does sound like you could easily have finished off your war ignoring HG till then and then talked things over afterwards rather than pausing the game which everyone hates; so I advise in future (and heathen forbid that you have such a situation again) that you quietly play out the rest of the session or at the *very* least the rest of any on-going war (as a dormant ai position isn't so bad), and then make your views known post session and resign at that point if you feel you have to. Sure you may not enjoy having to stick around and you may be demoralised but it'll be appreciated by most of the others in the game. And yes I would expect you to try and play properly and not at 50% ability, again that comes down to simple courtesy to the others in the game.

Sorry if I sound harsh, on the one hand I completely agree that you had a right to feel agrieved, but you could have handled it better .

Now I suggest you drop this and move on. You aren't helping yourself here any more.

 

[arcorelli]

As you can see it was not. Since the alternative was that I left the game. If you consider this to be "very, very non relevant", then I believe you are lacking somewhat in the emphatic quality I assume my fellow gamers posess.

OTOH, a player making threats of 'I will leave the game if not...' is not the most emphatic player around. To say it in other way, the only thing that made this a great and relevant thing for other players was your threat, not the situation per se. The situation was, well, a kind of typical problem, not worth a lot for other players. What transformed the situation in a giant problem for the game was *your* reaction (specifically, a threat to leave and pausing the game).

1. I did speak to Cheech, as I did to speak to everone. All my messages were visible for the whole community, not one special person. Although they primarily aimed at HG since it was he that made made the derogatory statement that created this situation.

In other words, you stopped a game because HG made a derogatory statement towards you. And you are claiming about emphatic players? Your actions clearly were not emphatic about the rest of the crew: You paused a game because a personal issue, actually an issue what was not about the game

I have already explained this. See post 35.

Well your explanation was not good enough. I still don't find believable.

Or to put differently: I don't find that strengthen your point: The only reason why this worried and was relevant for the rest of players was your reaction. Your IMHO over-reaction.

The task of the GM is to make sure the rules are applied correctly. Not to execute some kind of dictatorial allreaching power over the players. Again, if you disagree with this, then clearly say so.

Indeed. The problem is HG did not make that. He made a derogatory comment -actually, he don't believe you, something that is not a crime (although is aggravating, but that is a personal matter). The only order GM did was a proper and legitimate GM order: Unpause.

Your problem (HG has not apologized to me) did not need pausing to be solved. An apology can be written when game is going on.

When people repeat this mantra "Always obey the GM" (implicitly: you did not Daniel, therefore you have erred) it amazes me that you do not see that you yourself do not really believe this. Just imagine the GM say e.g.: "send me 2000d immediately", and you said "why", and he said "because it is my birthday today". Then it would be apparent for you that you were not bound to do this. Thus the maxim "Always obey the GM" is invalid. Q.E.D.

And unfortunately for your demostration, the current situation is not alike to your example. The GM made an order that is legit: Unpause.

IMO all too many of you just repeat what you were told instead of critically examine the statements. It was exactly the same with the maxim "never leave in the middle of a session, wait for a rehost" where I showed that in practice the reversed principle works better under certain circumstances (e.g. those existing in the actual case).

No, you did not. You think that you did, but I think you had not convined anyone of that.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

OTOH, a player making threats of 'I will leave the game if not...' is not the most emphatic player around. To say it in other way, the only thing that made this a great and relevant thing for other players was your threat, not the situation per se.

On the contrary. It is exactly that. I was greatly annoyed and lost all interest in the game. That should be a great and relevant thing for other players. If not they, per definition, are unempathic. In fact, what you just wrote can be said to be a definition of what unempathic is - you say they focus only on my threat - not on the reason for that threat. That is the antithesis of what empathy means, which is to try and move into another person's mind and try and see the world from his perspective and understand why he says what he says and does what he does. Do look up the word in your dictionary.

N.b. I do not say they necessarily should understand it during the game, they may well miss messages, nuances, conclusions etc. I am talking of what takes place now, after the game.

I would never accept a GM acting like this towards a fellow gamer. I would attack him as soon as I understood what was going on. I am disappointed in your view of ingame abusive language. Perhaps the common rule about that - explicit or implicit - are mere words for you. Well it is not for me. For me any deliberate breakings of a rules are "impossible" and if it occurs should immediately be rectified. Zero-tolerance vs intentional serious rule breaks. I have no interest in taking part in any other game and I have neither contracted to do that.

Indeed. The problem is HG did not make that. He made a derogatory comment -actually, he don't believe you, something that is not a crime (although is aggravating, but that is a personal matter). The only order GM did was a proper and legitimate GM order: Unpause.

Of course it is not a crime to believe I tell the truth. His crime is to publicly state that I do not tell the truth. Without have a discussion first were facts are analysed.

I feel I am just repeating myself. Now you drag up this old "proper.. GM order". I have responded to it about 4-5 times now...

Your problem (HG has not apologized to me) did not need pausing to be solved. An apology can be written when game is going on.

Of course it can. But you are a magician if you believe I could make HG make an apology just like that. It is irrelevant what is needed to write an apolgy. We have a real situation with humans beings with special character traits. You should know him better than I do but apparently you do not. Read the conversation. This needed time and calmness to end up in something constructive. It could not be done if I would focus 99% on the war (as I wanted to do) and 1% on the discussion. We had already played about two months with me focussing 99% on the discussion and 1% on the war.

I have already written on this or the rest you wrote. They are merely things already taken care of earlier in the thread. However, I will mention a few things.

When you write that "it is not believeable" what I refer to in post 35, i.e.

As for the pausing I have explained why I did it. Would you have preferred that I said to myself "OK, either I leave the game or we are going to try and sort this out in the middle of an important war. But if the latter then I need a pause. But these guys dislike pauses so much that a pause is out of question. Thus the only alternative is to quit immediately. Press Surrender."

So you see, the reason I paused was for you (and me) and the rest of the crew, to try and save my participation in the game. I behaved just like I would like any other fellow gamer to behave. Trying to calm down and use reason. Do you not agree?

it would have been interesting to hear what it is that is not believeable? Did that thought not struck you even once?

And for your two last comments

And unfortunately for your demostration, the current situation is not alike to your example. The GM made an order that is legit: Unpause.

I have responded to the question of the legality if his order to unpause numerous of times. That you repeat this statement without responding to the arguments I have made against it is hilarious.

No, you did not. You think that you did, but I think you had not convined anyone of that.

Do you always argue like this, just stating you do not agree. Not pointing at any fact or conclusion you believe to be wrong?

-------------

I have lost all interest in discussing this with you.

 

[Zeitgeist]

My impression as a sub in that game:

Even if HoG did make a mistake by implying you intentionally cheated, you exacerbated the situation by acting like a little schoolgirl and demanding that it be resolved right then, thereby inconveniencing the rest of the players in the game. There wasn't a need to pause the game, you could have continued the argument later without pausing.

Consider this: It might be important to you, but it means absolutely nothing to the rest of the players not involved in the debate. And you're wasting our time pausing demanding unclear apologies, and then abruptly quit, wasting even more time while we had to find a sub and rehost. It's very hard to feel any sort of sympathy for that kind of behavior. It could have waited. But any disrespect you feel that the rest of the players showed you by not feeling empathy for your cause was more than outweighed by the disrespect you showed the rest of us by leaving so precipitiously and endangering the session.

I don't really have any strong opinion on this argument, and frankly I don't care. But I think you both failed to act like reasonable adults. HoG was in the wrong for not giving you the benefit of the doubt, whereas you were in the wrong for getting completely worked up and deciding to pause the game for about 5 minutes until you got an apology. I personally believe you didn't intentionally cheat, but I don't know for sure and it doesn't really concern me. HoG was in the wrong by not immediately rehosting anyway.

You asked for everyone's opinion and I just proffered mine. You can offer all the windy philosophical justifications you want, but it's not going to change.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

It might be important to you, but it means absolutely nothing to the rest of the players not involved in the debate.

Thanks Zeit for so clearly showing how a truly unempathic person regards the situation. I could not have formulated it better myself.

As for even suspecting the possibility that I cheated is not only insulting to my character, but also to my intelligence. It ain't precisely difficult to imagine that Cheech would detect that I had attacked him, is it?

For the rest you are reiterating points that I have already responded to. Debates of the A-B-A-B-A kind lacks interest. It is debates like A-B-C-D that leads to conslusions beneficial for one or both sides.

---------------

Wyvern,

I agree with most of what you say. And I will take your advice and not argue with those I do not agree with.

Perhaps we can end the discussion here. Zeit hit the nail.

 

[King John]

Daniel, what part of Wyvern's post don't you agree with? I think he was 100% accurate.

And I think what he means by dropping this and moving on is that you should admit your mistakes finally instead of spewing out more windy philosophical justifications. We've established that HG was in the wrong. Now admit that you were too so we can move on.

As for not arguing with people that disagree with you, maybe this proves the pointlessness of arguing with you...

 

[DSYoungEsq]

As for not arguing with people that disagree with you, maybe this proves the pointlessness of arguing with you...

Like, duh.

 

[Zeitgeist]

Thanks Zeit for so clearly showing how a truly unempathic person regards the situation. I could not have formulated it better myself.

As for even suspecting the possibility that I cheated is not only insulting to my character, but also to my intelligence. It ain't precisely difficult to imagine that Cheech would detect that I had attacked him, is it?

For the rest you are reiterating points that I have already responded to. Debates of the A-B-A-B-A kind lacks interest. It is debates like A-B-C-D that leads to conslusions beneficial for one or both sides.

---------------

Perhaps we can end the discussion here. Zeit hit the nail.

With all due respect, it's hard to feel sympathy for the screaming child approach. But perhaps you're right, I'm truly unempathetic. Excellent.

In regards to your notions of debates, I apologize if my words were unenlightening, but sometimes there ISN'T in fact more to an argument than A-B-A-B, or A-B-C-A-B-C or A-B-C-D-B-A-B-C-D-B or A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K-Z-A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K-Z. But I'll keep that in mind for the future. Thanks a lot.

 

[arcorelli]

On the contrary. It is exactly that. I was greatly annoyed and lost all interest in the game. That should be a great and relevant thing for other players. If not they, per definition, are unempathic. In fact, what you just wrote can be said to be a definition of what unempathic is - you say they focus only on my threat - not on the reason for that threat. That is the antithesis of what empathy means, which is to try and move into another person's mind and try and see the world from his perspective and understand why he says what he says and does what he does. Do look up the word in your dictionary..

I was only pointing out that you were not being empathic either: You simply were not try and moving into other person's mind and try to see the world from their perspective. You didn't did that regarding the other players (the ones that, in all likelyhood, were wanting to play and did not wanted their game to go paused).

I would never accept a GM acting like this towards a fellow gamer. I would attack him as soon as I understood what was going on. I am disappointed in your view of ingame abusive language.

People get upset, heated up in a game. I think is clear that people will say abusive language, and is better not making too much a problem of that.

I feel I am just repeating myself. Now you drag up this old "proper.. GM order". I have responded to it about 4-5 times now...

Maybe your answers had not been convinging? I still don't see how an order to unpause is not legit for a GM. Is precisely the kind of things that people expect for a GM (and why we got GM after all): To avoid that one player stop the game.

We have a real situation with humans beings with special character traits. You should know him better than I do but apparently you do not. Read the conversation. This needed time and calmness to end up in something constructive.

And that is why is better doing after game, not ingame (when everyone is upset and kind of angry)

it would have been interesting to hear what it is that is not believeable? Did that thought not struck you even once?

What part is not believable? That the argument is a good one. That people could actually prefer a game being held up, with a threat of leaving if people don't listen to my complaint, and reach the conclusion that the complainer was in the right. That is, IMHO, precisely the kind of attitude that don't tend to gather support for your position.

I have responded to the question of the legality if his order to unpause numerous of times. That you repeat this statement without responding to the arguments I have made against it is hilarious.

You made the argument: Sometimes (and you put the 'GM orders that some X ducats put in their treasury' example) GM orders are not proper and legitimate. But I don't see how unpasing is part of that 'sometimes'. Specially since your complaint about GM (insulting remarks) were not about a GM decision / order, I still don't see how that makes the GM order unpause non-legit.

Do you always argue like this, just stating you do not agree. Not pointing at any fact or conclusion you believe to be wrong?

You were postulating that you made a demostration. I only pointed out that your demostration had not convinced a lot of people (and the point stands regardless of my opinion regarding you arguments). That put some doubts in the 'demostration' status of your argument. So, it is an argument and it is not simply stating any particular opinion of mine.

 

[unmerged(1047)]

Now, I haven't played MP, but I would expect a GM to refrain from openly accusing a player of cheating, especially if the player in question had already denied it, unless the circumstances were very clear (in this case they do not seem to have been). The GM is something of an authority figure - he should have set aside his personal feelings and let the other players dispute it, possibly with himself as arbitrator.

Maybe that's not the way things are commonly done in EU2 MP, but that's what *I* would expect.

 

[unmerged(5161)]

I think everyone should just read this and applaud my brilliance

THE UNLOVED GM

There is no point in me picking on HoG anymore, as it appears that my kicking his ass in WAR III + Daniel annoying the hell out of him has driven him into hiding. So it is best to learn from this experience and move on..... before you piss off a moderator.....

 

[Hive]

I think everyone should just read this and applaud my brilliance

THE UNLOVED GM

Oh yes, lots of people could benefit from reading that thread.

There is no point in me picking on HoG anymore, as it appears that my kicking his ass in WAR III + Daniel annoying the hell out of him has driven him into hiding.

What are you babbling about? There's *always* a point in picking on the HoG.

HG dissapears from time to time, it's just the way of things.