All Posts by Impacatus

Originally posted by Zorvan

Originally posted by Impacatus

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by Impacatus

 

See?  I can use reductio ad absurdum too.  It's not a crime to respect people who are different than you.  In order to do this, you need to accept that they might be offended by things you wouldn't be.  That's part of being different.

 

There is a very large difference between offending someone and harming some one.

Offending someone is fine.

We don't need laws to protect people from becoming offended.

We need laws to protect people from harm.

 

 

There is also a recogniseable difference between actions taken with the deliberate motive of causing offense, and accidental offense.

In the case of accidental offense, the person taking offense is equally to blame. Respecting each other is a two way street.

 

What are you talking about?  No one was arrested in this story.  The only talk of laws against offending people are coming from those who want the display up as is.

As far as I can tell, two people excercised their rights in this story.  The couple excercised their right to free speech by expressing their opinion on what the picture called to mind, and the representatives excercised their property rights by taking it down.  I'm not sure which upsets some of the people in this thread, whether they think that minorities should have their speech restricted or that organizers of an event like this should be required to put up racially offensive displays. 

unknown22-

"You call us racists.

You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us."

Yes, that's not racist at all.

 

You pull one line out of that to attack it. That is why arguing with you is pointless and time wasting. You want to paint everyone here as racist for some reason.

Actually I thought the whole thing was somewhat racist, that was just the most blatant example.  Has it occurred to you that calling an entire race of people racist is itself racist?  That was essentially what unknown22's little rant was doing.

I honestly can't imagine everyone making such a huge deal about this if it weren't for the race component.  If the story was about a tourist eating in some kind of ethnic restaurant who requests and receives a dish free of camel meat, because he feels uncomfortable about eating it, would this make the news?  Would you complain about it this much?

Really, what is there to argue with me about?  Does that couple or do they not have the right to free speech?  Do the county representatives or do they not have the right to make the decision as to whether or not to display the image?

Originally posted by unknown22

really i just do not think that this was made to offend. if it was, it would have been caught, and the display would not have even been submitted in the first place.

those who think that the kids' innocence is inexcusable are part of the reason racism is still a tough issue.

but shouldn't we all strive to be in a sense innocent like those kids?

Are you "innocent" or racially color-blind?  Because I seem to recall you posting a long rant about black people.  Seems to me that someone as innocent as you claim to want to be would not see black people complaining about racism, black people commiting crimes, or black people not willing to forget the past, just people.  The fact that you are in fact not willing to seperate the actions of a few individuals from their race shows that you are not doing what you're advising.

i mean, i understand that its important not to forget the things that happened in the past so we don't repeat it. but the fact is that everyone remembering those hard times is still causing hard feelings.

yes, the couple had every right to be offended because of the reference they personally made in their own mind, but to take the matter outside of that, to take it so far as to try and have the display removed.. lets face it.. they were overreacting.

like i said earlier.. i simply saw two seeds.. but if i really wanted to i could make that argument that it is racist against whites...

but really... would you see me going out of my way to have some stupid cartoony display  taken down? no. 

and even if i did.. people would think i was overreacting and the display would be kept up regardless.

If you want to forget the past, you can start with this incident, then continue on to all those other imagined slights you were complaining about.  Then you can stop making a big deal about whatever racial issues you hear about that don't affect you and aren't your business.

Have you ever really been in this situation?  If not, how do you know how people would react?  Although for the record, I do think you're overreacting to the perceived insult against whites caused by taking this down.

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by Impacatus

 

See?  I can use reductio ad absurdum too.  It's not a crime to respect people who are different than you.  In order to do this, you need to accept that they might be offended by things you wouldn't be.  That's part of being different.

 

There is a very large difference between offending someone and harming some one.

Offending someone is fine.

We don't need laws to protect people from becoming offended.

We need laws to protect people from harm.

 

 

There is also a recogniseable difference between actions taken with the deliberate motive of causing offense, and accidental offense.

In the case of accidental offense, the person taking offense is equally to blame. Respecting each other is a two way street.

 

What are you talking about?  No one was arrested in this story.  The only talk of laws against offending people are coming from those who want the display up as is.

As far as I can tell, two people excercised their rights in this story.  The couple excercised their right to free speech by expressing their opinion on what the picture called to mind, and the representatives excercised their property rights by taking it down.  I'm not sure which upsets some of the people in this thread, whether they think that minorities should have their speech restricted or that organizers of an event like this should be required to put up racially offensive displays. 

unknown22-

"You call us racists.

You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us."

Yes, that's not racist at all.

The same reason you're in here trying to say it's no big deal, when it doesn't affect you and apparently isn't any of your business either.

Except I'm saying, "They can do what they want."  You're saying, "THEY MUST DO WHAT I DEMAND!!"

Who's the injured party? In this case, I'd say the student who created it, since it's his work being labeled "racist".

We don't even know how he feels about it, but assuming you're right, apparently there's a choice between offending the artist or some of the patrons.  Hmm who gets to decide which?  Oh I know, how about the people who actually have something to gain or lose from this instead of some random guy on the internet?

I think they should have the right to tell the "offended" people to join the present and get over it and not change a damn thing, and not be persecuted for it.

But not the right to take down the display and not be persecuted for it?  Besides, where do you get the idea they're being persecuted?  Has it occurred to you that maybe they don't WANT to cause offense? 

Amazingly enough, I don't see them asking the student anything, just throwing thier labels around.

Amazingly enough, I don't see you asking "them", the student, or the complaining parties anything.  Just throwing your labels around.

throwing the word racist around in the media and creating a furor doesn't exactly give them free choice without being condemned, now does it?

Who exactly does have "free choice without being condemned?".

Where was the word racist even used?  The complaint was that it strongly resembled caricatures from the Jim Crow era.  Do you disagree with this?

What exactly do you see in this article?  Does the idea of a public organization attempting to be racially sensitive really upset you this much?

Do you get this upset when violence and nudity is edited out of movies for TV showings?  Do you get this upset when restaurants try to keep their dining areas clean?  "They should have the right to tell their diners who don't want to sit in filth to grow up!".  They do, but maybe they don't want to do that.

It's not like everyone's secretly a super-racist who's forced to keep quiet out of fear of the  fascist PC government.  We're not in a state of constant race-war, sometimes people WANT to be nice to each other.  Why shouldn't they be allowed?

How exactly do you get that from my posts?

My position on this is simple, as I stated.  "It may not be a big deal, but changing it isn't a big deal either."

It's up to the organizers whether or not they allow the display.  Why are so worked up about something that doesn't affect you at all and really isn't any of your business?  Who is the injured party in this case?

Do you actually think they should be compelled, by law or public pressure, to keep the display up?  What about if the artist himself decided it was unintentionally offensive and want it taken down?  Do you not believe that people who run events like these have a right to decide for themselves what they put up?  Perhaps you'd prefer if there was a government mandated edginess minimum?

Originally posted by Zorvan

Originally posted by Impacatus

Originally posted by Zorvan

Originally posted by Impacatus

I'm curious, if someone was intentionally trying to draw a watermelon seed that was also a racist caricature, how would it look, if not like that?  I'm not saying that was the intention of the artist, but I can definitely see the resemblance with old fashioned caricatures they're comparing it to.

It may not be a big deal, but changing it isn't a big deal either.

 

When you consider some of the stupid things people find to be "racist" or "politically incorrect", changing all of them to please a few whining people does become a big deal.

Such as that idiot who found "black hole" to be racist.

 

And has that word been changed as a result?

It's not an all or nothing thing.  One can dismiss ridiculous things like that while erring on the side of civility in clearly borderline cases such as this.

 

Fine . Then if they want to change this, they should have to write a letter to the students' family explaining that because he/she's obviously a racist, they are changing his contribution. Because that's what they are basically saying with all of this.

And God forbid if any restaurant ever has fried chicken and watermelon on the same menu if they serve black people.

Or maybe they should be required by law to keep it up?  Maybe we need an edginess task force that ensures every public organization puts up displays that offend minorities just the right amount every so often?  After all, it's critical to the moral health of the nation that we never shirk our duties in insulting blacks.

You know, after 9/11 many upcoming movies that had scenes of the twin towers edited them out.  Should they have been forced to put them back in?  After all, there's nothing worse than showing sensitivity.

See?  I can use reductio ad absurdum too.  It's not a crime to respect people who are different than you.  In order to do this, you need to accept that they might be offended by things you wouldn't be.  That's part of being different.

Originally posted by Zorvan

Originally posted by Impacatus

I'm curious, if someone was intentionally trying to draw a watermelon seed that was also a racist caricature, how would it look, if not like that?  I'm not saying that was the intention of the artist, but I can definitely see the resemblance with old fashioned caricatures they're comparing it to.

It may not be a big deal, but changing it isn't a big deal either.

 

When you consider some of the stupid things people find to be "racist" or "politically incorrect", changing all of them to please a few whining people does become a big deal.

Such as that idiot who found "black hole" to be racist.

And has that word been changed as a result?

It's not an all or nothing thing.  One can dismiss ridiculous things like that while erring on the side of civility in clearly borderline cases such as this.

I'm curious, if someone was intentionally trying to draw a watermelon seed that was also a racist caricature, how would it look, if not like that?  I'm not saying that was the intention of the artist, but I can definitely see the resemblance with old fashioned caricatures they're comparing it to.

It may not be a big deal, but changing it isn't a big deal either.

Originally posted by Raithe-Nor

The important thing to realize about the answers that have been given in this thread, and the MMORPG industry as a whole is that things have gotten really, really confusing.  We are actually several different customer bases asking for several different genres from the exact same developers.  In my opinion, the different customer bases fit into the following camps, with a minor amount of cross-camping:

1) Tourists:  These people are just looking for an interactive book to read.  They get really upset if things are overly difficult for them to progress and understand the "story."  They aren't necessarily interested in grouping that much, as that would require them to work around someone else's schedule and time frames.  They actually should be enjoying single player adventure games.

2) Metagamers.  Some call them powergamers.  These people use the role playing statistics to build "toons" that have high chances of success at whatever part of the game is deemed important, through loot acquisition and adjusting scores to fit the environment.  Parts of the game that are deemed important are usually either PvP, or "end game."  These players should actually be enjoying a good round of fantasy baseball or football.

3) Achievers.  I call them strategists.  These people want to see if they can beat whatever gets put in front of them as a challenge.  While this group actually fits in pretty decently with any kind of game genre, if these people aren't that interested in the last camp, they might as well be playing any other game.

4) Roleplayers.  These are the people for whom the MMORPG genre was invented.  They like imaginative, creative games that are not restricted by simple rules.  They need the massive player networking to create simulated social environments for their social experimentation and interactive storytelling.  Fantasy is usually their preferred style, as mystery, magic, heroic or villanous motives, and technological simplicity are some of the best tools for their style of play.

Many people will say that more than one of these playerbases can be appeased by the MMORPG genre.  I beg to differ.  While the same person can be both a strategist and a roleplayer, anyone who is not in the roleplaying camp is really playing an entirely different game requiring an entirely different development focus.  In my humble opinion, the most pressing issue for the MMORPG industry is for all of us to get together and unanimously come to the decision that the playerbases need to go their separate ways.

That is amazingly insightful, and I'm very inclined to agree.

Anyways, I'm hearing that skill based systems result in players trying to get the best template.  Well, in that case it's a good thing that all the players of linear mmorpgs are true roleplayers who never choose their race, class or equipment for metagame reasons.

I'm also hearing that the presence of player politics makes the game less casual friendly.  How?  How much of your time does the government demand in real life?  Probably a lot if you work for them.  Otherwise, you just need to stay out of their way and occasionally deal with some bureaucracy.  The nature of mmos would eliminate the need for bureaucracy, so how exactly would an in game government require any extra time?

I don't personally know whether or not there are other suitable locations, but if there weren't when it was founded, I don't see why there would now.  Don't know how feasible an unmanned seaport is either, but I agree that if things continue to worsen something will have to be done.

OP is true.  The parties balance out each other.  Whenever people are miserable, they elect Democrats to make things better.  Whenever people are happy, they elect Republicans to make them miserable.  This will continue until we reach an equilibrium.

I really don't think New Orleans is going anywhere.  As I understand, it serves as the main seaport for the entire Mississippi River.  There's not a lot of solid ground in that area, so there weren't many locations to choose from when it was founded.  It may seem confusing why they would build it there, but it has a critical economic role.

Ok, so where does this idea come from that sandbox games take more to play than linear games?

Time Investment?

Pre-CU Star Wars Galaxies was one of the most casual friendly games out there. It's the linear games that force you to grind and grind on the leveling treadmill until you're deemed worthy of the next area of content. It's them that segregate players by level, forcing you to keep up with your friends if you want to keep playing with them. Sandbox lets you advance at your own pace and ideally provides roles for all players regardless of level.

Creativity?

Sandbox games encourage, but don't require creativity. You'd do perfectly well just consuming the content of others. Don't know what to do when you enter the game? Join up with someone and let them tell you.

Knowledge and Research?

There may be more to learn, but you don't have to know it all at once. Every game has a learning curve, I'll bet the main reason linear games seem easier to most people is the gameplay is the same as other games they've played. Even so, you learn as you play.

Originally posted by Herodes

 

All your points (but of course the "skill-based") can be in level based games.

 

For me it is not a question of sandbox, I favourize the word "content". I like the levels etc in my RPgames as a kind of progress, "you become stronger through enough training and experience".

Content.
City of Heroes/Villains, level based: Finest character-customization, meaningful grouping with all kinds of level.
DAoC, level-based: housing, (boring+expensive) crafting, many places to hunt in your level, controlled+rewarding 3-factions-pvp
Vanguard, level-based: very good crafting, diplomacy-system, virtual world
Horizons (Istaria), level-based: even better housing, good crafting, AND able to play all classes with a single character (EVE with levels *grins*)
WoW, levelbased: very good controls like FPS
and so on

These things into a single MMO and you don´t need sandbox. You want to play another role? Begin another toon. You need to level it? Look at it as a kind of "Skilling" like in EVE.
Of course you can build a house in EVE. It just costs you like 40.000.000.000(.000...not sure now) ingame currency unless you farm it (and skill it).
 

See, that's the point I'm trying to make.  I understand that different people have different priorities, but there's no reason to want LESS out of a game.

For the record, I dislike level based not because I want to play more than one role, but because I want to make my own experience, not one packaged by the devs.  Class/level reduces players to "level 10 warrior", "level 15 mage", "level 20 cleric".  Once the devs start branding players like cattle, it becomes to easy to treat them as such.  You start getting content for levels and classes instead of for people.

Yes, I know there have been a lot of sandbox threads lately, but I've always wondered about this.  Everyone says that most people prefer linear mmos to sandbox mmos, but I really don't understand why, if this is true.

Why wouldn't you want player interaction that goes beyond grouping?  Why wouldn't you want a dynamic player economy and politics that make players relevant to each other, that allow even people of different levels to play together?  Why wouldn't you want the challenge of having to play people instead of just numbers?

Why wouldn't you want to allow players to make non-combat skills their focus? 

What's so terrible about features like player housing and cities, or avatar customization?

Why do you like being forced to stick to the level appropriate zones instead of being allowed to go where you want?

What's so great about being forced to choose your class from a menu instead of just training what you want in a skill based system?

What do linear mmorpgs have that's incompatible with features like these?

Originally posted by ketrine

I was not disagreeing as much as just responding, Impacatus. 

Oh.  Alright then.  Thanks for getting my name right, BTW.     Most people call me "Impactus".

You know, I really do wonder why more developers don't market towards females.  Most of the features you and others have stated as appealing to girls do not seem like bad features, and I don't think that a larger female population would in any way hurt sales among the traditional mmorpgs markets.  If anything it might help a good deal.

Only skimmed the thread so far, but this reminded me too much of this:

So you see, SWG-vets aren't the only people who think the idea is unethical. 

Originally posted by wjrasmussen

Originally posted by Impacatus

Originally posted by wjrasmussen

What if the ingame items were for something like ingame property and buildings?

 

How would that change the situation in any way?

What is your answer?

What is your question?  Sorry, I don't really understand.  What was your first post a reply to?

Originally posted by wjrasmussen

Originally posted by Impacatus

Originally posted by wjrasmussen

What are your specific goals?  Can you bullet point in a concise and very specific way what you want?

 

Um, I guess if you want me to.

<