|
Post by Frederic Bourgault-Christie on Mar 14, 2006 18:53:28 GMT -5
That's an incredibly stupid analogy. GAARA was the one advocating the law of the jungle and violence without attention to rules. NARUTO is the one advocating a code of ethics and behavior. Similarly, SASUKE sells out the team and is generally sort of an asshole and loses. Naruto's victory over Gaara and Gaara's subsequent redemption and ascension to Kazekage, as well as the similar redemption of Zabuza, is a sign that in the context of Naruto ethics trump the "law of the jungle". By your logic, my behavior should be rewarded with power and prestige and yours punished. (And note that saying that Naruto was tough as nails isn't a response, because being tough as nails is connected to Naruto being a good guy and having a dream he fights for. He's even said he wouldn't be Hokage if it meant doing wrong!). And, as a wise Klingon once said to an aspiring Bajoran cadet, one should not let themselves be unfairly judged. Awarding someone 5000 exp despite the fact that their defeat was due to factors outside their control and despite their best play has nothing to do with the law of the jungle and everything to do with a reward structure that is clearly not looking at an anomalous situation. So MAYBE your behavior was acceptable, though it sure ain't fun, but then a special consideration should have been made, non? Anyways, you a) concede that even from the perspective of the law of the jungle it would be more logical to have eliminated everyone else besides me because of the way that would alter the fights in the tournament to the advantage of everyone else (you can pick on me in the actual tournament and get an easy, free fight) and b) that, since this is a battle arena in a frigging roleplaying game, that what should be rewarded is strategy and behavior that is conducive to fun, not rewarding the law of the jungle. Nor does this respond to your ethical obligation both IC and OOC not to behave in such a manner. (Well, IC you're ethically obligated not to kill and be involved in bloodsport, but that's ruled out by fiat, i.e. the fact that it's a battle arena. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) ) Oh, and in any respect, all the analogy establishes is what the creator of Naruto thinks about the relative advantages of good behavior versus amoral violence. We have no reason to accept his philosophy as expressed in the story. If you want to support the law of the jungle, just cite Mein Kampf.
|
|
|
Post by blacktothefuture on Mar 21, 2006 22:13:44 GMT -5
I'm the one dammit! Don't make me white you out of existance! ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) Seriously though, from what I could understand I saw your point, and from what I couldn't understand I disagree until I understand it enough to form a fair opinion.
|
|
|
Post by GM on Mar 21, 2006 23:59:31 GMT -5
hey fred thats sorta unfair setting him up with a defence like that i mean come on mein kampf is sorta an unfair thing to cite cause as soon as you do our considered a nazi (not neciassarily by you but you know what i mean).
|
|
|
Post by Frederic Bourgault-Christie on Mar 22, 2006 0:02:14 GMT -5
Ash: I was making an analogy to show that simply citing a piece of literature or culture is not enough to make an argument. Someone can disagree with the author or the philosophy of the piece with no contradiction or absurdity faced. Yes, it is an extreme example, but let's take one close to my heart. A lot of Isaac Asimov stories are elitist and statist: I'm opposed to that, yet I love Asimov's work. Black: If arguments I made are confusing, you may want to identify which ones. Y'know. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by GM on Mar 22, 2006 12:48:22 GMT -5
i know im just saying some people wouldnt think that deep just to warn you i just dont want him offending any people.
|
|
|
Post by blacktothefuture on Mar 22, 2006 22:26:09 GMT -5
Okay, first off what's the whole "this person was advocating this" thing about? I used the example only to hopefully augment my point in saying:
Sasuke came close to beating Gaara in the preliminaries but didn't because of an "unfair" change of events.
Naruto actually won despite certain "unfair" conditions working against him. Inadvertantly implying the strongest won yes, but......you lost me on that paragraph.
The second I just saw no point to.
And the third one just seemed like you were just complaining about the unfairness. Which it was pretty unfair, I mean...c'mon it's like you were a magnet for damage or something.
Anyway, the jewish nazis and their communist plot to destroy all your chickens may have succeeded. Regardless if you wish to clairify ect. you might want to do it PM style because Ashley Williams hates it when people paragraph post. (Sorry couldn't help it this time)
|
|
|
Post by Frederic Bourgault-Christie on Mar 23, 2006 0:17:13 GMT -5
Black: Your point was an advocacy. You were saying that somehow your behavior is just and indeed SHOULD be done, and that others should play by those rules or shut up, in essence. I don't know what "close" is, considering that Gaara's true power of Shikaku was still hidden and Gaara had prepared for the eventuality, but in any respect the preliminaries is not the most important fight. Nor does your point hold AT ALL for the broad strokes of the saga. You are mistaking the fact that sometimes bad guys or characters who are clearly supposed to be morally inferior to others win, which is key for the story to advance and even exist, for a philosophy that says that always occurs, which is flatly denied by the story. Naruto won despite unfair conditions precisely BECAUSE he is a good person. Sasuke has no shortage of willpower or ambition: The ONLY cleavage between Naruto and Sasuke worth noting is that Sasuke is cold and callous and Naruto gregarious and kind. Which would support MY argument, and certainly not yours. And also note that these are irrelevant examples because the characters had an opportunity to win at all, whereas clearly here I was unable to win DESPITE my best strategy, which is precisely my point, so all your argument does is beg the question. Yes, I was precisely issuing a complaint about how unfair on a number of levels, especially the fact that it wasn't logical anyways, that I got gangbeat. To call it a complaint is to try to slip in a denigrating argument that I guarantee you you can't make explicitly: It's my contention, supported by good argumentation, that it is a LEGITIMATE complaint. I agree that I was a magnet for damage, and as I am sure you can tell that sucks. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) I'm an admin, so I sort of have the big stick here ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) . In any respect, this is a dead thread. But if you want to PM, go ahead.
|
|
|
Post by blacktothefuture on Mar 23, 2006 17:18:52 GMT -5
Alright, if I follow all this correctly......
You got ganged up on unfairly and commented (not complained but commented) on it.(After all it was a runner up for cheapest move of the century)
I made the only the strongest survive comment with the intent of saying that regardless of fairness if you can't deal with the changes of battle are you fit to win anyway. Then gave a poor analogy of the situation from Naruto.
You rebuttled with the fact that the analogy was more supportive of your side as opposed to mine. You also reasoned that my initial comment was untrue as well.
I did the whole .......? thing
Then you informed me my point was an advacocy (sp?) in itself and something about morality?
|
|
|
Post by Frederic Bourgault-Christie on Mar 23, 2006 21:25:39 GMT -5
But whether I'm fit to win in all circumstances is clearly an unfair burden. To say that Chuck Norris is a brilliant martial artist is not rebutted by the fact that 100 men with M-60s could kill him. And to say that I played with the appropriate strategy, intelligence, behavior and skill given the character that I currently have is not rebutted by the fact that I lost. Yes, it does eventually come down to who can kill who, but that is NOT a justification for rewarding such behavior with exp or not punishing it. A GM should be using experience as a reward: For playtime, for intelligence, for interaction, for effort and sacrifice, for the general skill and ability being deployed in the game. This rewards precisely more of such skill and ability. (To be clear, I am assuming that all people have a roughly equivalent "skill" level in doing so. When this does not occur, GMs should compensate as well.) So, because your behavior was not conducive to OOC play dynamic, strategy or skill in play and in fact seemed to punish it, the optimal situation for the game would be to level the playing field of remuneration. One way Aaron did it was to turn all those who were not being good sports into chickens in the next battle arena. This would encourage you not to do so again. Simple incentive analysis, here. (And also the others who engaged in the practice.)
I then moved onto point out that you were indeed advocating a notion of how things SHOULD be and implicitly saying that you in fact deserved the remuneration that you got. I rebutted by reference to a notion of ethics as a PC. This notion of ethics includes such things as being courteous to other players even if you don't like them.
|
|
|
Post by blacktothefuture on Mar 23, 2006 22:04:48 GMT -5
Aaaaahhhh, I see.
Very well then. You do have a pretty good point there. No further questions your admin.-ness.
|
|