Goblin Squad Member
|
You really think that the 20000 to 30000 new players are going to be either caring who the kickstarters are or paying any attention to their demands on behavior?It's all about the community standards that take hold in the beginning, which will be very heavily influenced by the Kickstarter backers. And Ryan is stacking the deck to avoid a "toxic" and "degenerate" culture.
A lot of folks will come here from EVE expecting PFO to be "EVE with Swords". They're going to learn hard lessons about consequences. I expect most of them will quickly abandon their attempts to make PFO into "EVE with Swords", and to embrace PFO for what it actually is.
I think they'll respond to incentives just like any other person would. I think you'll find folks expecting to be able to kill everyone they see and still excel. They'll learn that's not effective, and they'll modify their behavior appropriately.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They are going to follow one way though, is my argument. They are going to follow the way to help strengthen their own position, is my argument. I'm not saying they will stay the top dog forever, but they will remain a major force to be reckoned with.Settlements will only be coming into the game shortly before OE, in fact I believe it was mentioned as the go signal for OE to commence.
Settlement Warfare is the trigger for the switch to OE. Settlements themselves will exist for some time prior to that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hopefully it will never happen. If GW does become a "murder simulator", its reputation will be severally damaged as some players will leave and others will never give it a try.
Based on Ryan Dancy's definition of a Murder Simulator, it is impossible for PFO to become a Murder Sim. Even without the alignment or reputation system, it could still not become a Murder Sim based on that definition.
PFO would have to become a MultiPlayer, Non Persistent, FPS, with no death penalty and instantaneous respawn.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am starting to wonder how wise it is to develop a sense that Kickstarters and later EE players are much different or more precious than any OE influx. In the absence of all of us under one banner (of some sort), our numbers will be pretty insignificant. We can't get past that.
The OE crowd will be large (assuming the game is popular) and some of them may come in blocks, but many will also come in as small groups or singles. We don't need to develop a culture or community of "Us against Them" unless we want to polarize a great number of them against us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see it as "Us against Them" where "Us" refers to the Kickstarter Backers, and "Them" refers to those who show up in OE.
Rather, I see it as "Us against Them" where "Us" refers to people who have embraced Ryan's vision of "lots of PvP, but little meaningless PvP" and "a culture that isn't toxic or degenerate", and "Them" refers to those who insist that they'll be able to play PFO however they want and that Ryan's "consequences" are merely minor annoyances for them to work around.
I could care less when someone joins PFO. The only thing that matters to me are their principles. If they're willing to play according to the spirit of the rules, great. If they insist that everything that is not explicitly forbidden is permitted, then we'll probably clash.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Based on Ryan Dancy's definition of a Murder Simulator, it is impossible for PFO to become a Murder Sim.
If the community is overwhelmed by Low Reputation folks who work in cohesive units to destroy any attempts to build High Reputation Settlements, such that the "good guys" don't have any place to train to get the higher level Skills that are supposed to give them an advantage over the Low Reputation folks, then PFO could indeed become a murder simulator.
If folks consistently get killed whenever they're spotted outside of the NPC Starter Zones regardless of other factors, then I think that would satisfy the definition of a Murder Simulator.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Where Us is us and Them is everyone who enters the game later than we do then I'd point out that if we diligently increase Us with each influx of new players by steady and effective recruiting then we shouldn't have a real problem with being badly outnumbered. If we grow insular and exclusive we won't have a snowball's chance in hell.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Based on Ryan Dancy's definition of a Murder Simulator, it is impossible for PFO to become a Murder Sim.If the community is overwhelmed by Low Reputation folks who work in cohesive units to destroy any attempts to build High Reputation Settlements, such that the "good guys" don't have any place to train to get the higher level Skills that are supposed to give them an advantage over the Low Reputation folks, then PFO could indeed become a murder simulator.
If folks consistently get killed whenever they're spotted outside of the NPC Starter Zones regardless of other factors, then I think that would satisfy the definition of a Murder Simulator.
That would definitely qualify as a "murder sim" for me. I am disconcerted that it will be a way to operate for those that have the will and more so that it seems to be "OK" to a certain point. I am less convinced that everyone will operate that way, unless so many dangerous groups do it that all have to do it to compete.
I am pretty confident that GW will not let it get that bad, but at the same time uncertain how they would put the genie back in the bottle, once it is out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Based on Ryan Dancy's definition of a Murder Simulator, it is impossible for PFO to become a Murder Sim.If the community is overwhelmed by Low Reputation folks who work in cohesive units to destroy any attempts to build High Reputation Settlements, such that the "good guys" don't have any place to train to get the higher level Skills that are supposed to give them an advantage over the Low Reputation folks, then PFO could indeed become a murder simulator.
If folks consistently get killed whenever they're spotted outside of the NPC Starter Zones regardless of other factors, then I think that would satisfy the definition of a Murder Simulator.
I don't think this will be exclusive to just the goals of Low Reputation units. It will be the goal of any of the more competitive settlements, even if they are the "good guys".
I can see PFO shaping up to be the battle of "King of the Hill". There will be a server first, Tier 3 Settlement. This will paint a target on it. Many other Tier 2 settlements will now decide, do we build up to tier 3 as fast as we can, or do we join forces to bring the "High and Mighty" down?
I certainly hope for and will encourage that "Tear Them Down" approach. Maintaining the balance of power is done through frequent conflict. More conflict means more need for mercenary bandits to raid rivals. The more raiding, the more coin finds its way into UNC coffers and the more influence we will gain to fund our own feuds.
I am starting to wonder how wise it is to develop a sense that Kickstarters and later EE players are much different or more precious than any OE influx. In the absence of all of us under one banner (of some sort), our numbers will be pretty insignificant. We can't get past that.
The OE crowd will be large (assuming the game is popular) and some of them may come in blocks, but many will also come in as small groups or singles. We don't need to develop a culture or community of "Us against Them" unless we want to polarize a great number of them against us.
I don't think that's peoples' intention. My example explicitly mentioned that non-griefer newcomers might end up allying with the Paizonians to counter griefing efforts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that's peoples' intention. My example explicitly mentioned that non-griefer newcomers might end up allying with the Paizonians to counter griefing efforts.
There are plenty of non griefer new comers who will consider Nihimons view of acceptable behavior to be irrelevant and unworkable. I am one of them.
As to people joining existing groups. I am sure that many will be willing to and I fully encourage those that want to fail to recruit as many as you can. Indiscriminate recruiting kills more fledgling corporations and alliances in Eve than virtually anything else. I do not expect many to take that advice to heart but it happens to be true
It isn't so much that they join our organizations as it is that they buy into our ideals.
You have ideals? Can you state them?
Remember Nihimon who I gather epitomises all that is right and holy in the pathfinder vision was happy to make newbies kill on sight if it might stop people using unaffiliated alts and advocates griefing the low rep people on the grounds of "they probably deserve it". Sounds like a great set of ideals to me (SARCASM)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@steelwing
I hardly think all of the corporations want to indiscriminately recruit anyone.
I mean clearly Pax won't take anyone who UNC has, and assuredly UNC isn't going to try stealing the TEO neophites, who will of course hiss on sight of anyone from Pax Golgotha(I think is the right one).
amiright?
On a serious note,
I am of the opinion that some indiscriminate recruitment can and will happen, and that is fine.
People will join a guild (guilds) and if they find it doesn't fit them they will move on, with both parties having received something from the experience. If you join a company you aren't required to stay in it.
It is, as stated before, up to the remaining to come back stronger before. The guild(s) through this process will determine what types of people they desire in their guild, and the individuals will discover what type of guild they want.
It is the responsibility of the Guild Leader and the PR/Recruitment agents of that guild to bring in new, willing recruits, and it is the job of the individual to determine if a guild is or isn't their home.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by indiscriminate recruitment. But I see two ways to go about it. 1) You set "open to all levels/races/whatevers" and see who applies 2) You monitor the channels and offer everyone who you see/hear/learn about a chance to join your guild.
These are, as I said before, countered by the act of entrance and exit. A guild will find out who they want, a recruiter will learn what fits their guild and what doesn't, and individuals will learn what they want.
There are sure to be exceptions to this, cases that fit your description, but I think those shall be a minority, and there is always an exception so I don't feel right to argue about the possibilities. If you are going to argue about uncertainty (which we all love to do, myself included) it really isn't worth the effort.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can state my ideals for PFO, but I don't believe I can rightly state 'our' ideals for PFO. ~edit~I suspect I am not alone. ~end edit~
My personal ideal for PFO is to craft of my virtual life a bold and rewarding saga that I might savor in memory long after it is gone. I would wish to grow wiser than I am, and to share what wisdom I learn.
What is your ideal, Steelwing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@steelwing
I hardly think all of the corporations want to indiscriminately recruit anyone.
I mean clearly Pax won't take anyone who UNC has, and assuredly UNC isn't going to try stealing the TEO neophites, who will of course hiss on sight of anyone from Pax Golgotha(I think is the right one).
amiright?
On a serious note,
I am of the opinion that some indiscriminate recruitment can and will happen, and that is fine.
People will join a guild (guilds) and if they find it doesn't fit them they will move on, with both parties having received something from the experience. If you join a company you aren't required to stay in it.
It is, as stated before, up to the remaining to come back stronger before. The guild(s) through this process will determine what types of people they desire in their guild, and the individuals will discover what type of guild they want.
It is the responsibility of the Guild Leader and the PR/Recruitment agents of that guild to bring in new, willing recruits, and it is the job of the individual to determine if a guild is or isn't their home.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by indiscriminate recruitment. But I see two ways to go about it. 1) You set "open to all levels/races/whatevers" and see who applies 2) You monitor the channels and offer everyone who you see/hear/learn about a chance to join your guild.
These are, as I said before, countered by the act of entrance and exit. A guild will find out who they want, a recruiter will learn what fits their guild and what doesn't, and individuals will learn what they want.
There are sure to be exceptions to this, cases that fit your description, but I think those shall be a minority, and there is always an exception so I don't feel right to argue about the possibilities. If you are going to argue about uncertainty (which we all love to do, myself included) it really isn't worth the effort.
I will try and explain what I mean then
A settlement is designed for 500 to 1000 people (cf Ryan Dancey)
The biggest announced organisations currently are probably Pax and TEO
Both of these organistations count according to my reckoning around 100 to 150 members (though some may never appear in game)
Given that settlements start towards the end of EE and begin OE then if we assume the current kickstarters as the population prior to OE and we know there will be 15 settlements handed out then an average settlement population is going to be (%age who want to be in a player settlement * EE kickstarter numbers ) / 15
If we assume 50% join a player settlement ( a number 50% bigger than people who join null sec alliances in eve) then we get about 4500 / 15 or 300 players per settlement.
That means the big groups such a Pax and TEO have to recruit twice their current numbers to be in the average per settlement number.
When you recruit ad hoc in eve (as some corporations do just join as a trial account and watch the join our corp spam roll by) you find with no vetting procedures that those corps tend to grow quite large before exploding spectacularly in coruscating flowers of intra guild drama.
Not all do but just grabbing any warm body who will sign on the dotted line as many will be tempted to do will be a recipe for disaster for many. Slow managed growth may mean it takes longer to build your settlement but will usually mean that your settlement and alliance is more stable in the long run.
Currently most guilds/companies/settlements are taking anyone who can register on their forums (yes I know this by experience). It will come back to bite many of them.
I can state my ideals for PFO, but I don't believe I can rightly state 'our' ideals for PFO.
My personal ideal for PFO is to craft of my virtual life a bold and rewarding saga that I might savor in memory long after it is gone. I would wish to grow wiser than I am, and to share what wisdom I learn.
What is your ideal, Steelwing?
I wasn't quibbling with people having a personal ideal I was more quibbling with the idea that there is an ideal agreed upon forum wide here with the exception of
"No on wants griefers in the game"
but even then frankly I don't think we all agree on what a griefer is
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can state my ideals for PFO, but I don't believe I can rightly state 'our' ideals for PFO. I suspect I am not alone.
My personal ideal for PFO is to craft of my virtual life a bold and rewarding saga that I might savor in memory long after it is gone. I would wish to grow wiser than I am, and to share what wisdom I learn.
What is your ideal, Steelwing?
As I notice my husband failed to actually answer your question I thought I would tell you what his answer should be in order of priority.
1) To ensure that the people he is responsible for (that is our settlement) have fun and enjoy the game
2) To be the dominant force in the river kingdoms and make others tremble with fear at the thought of crossing us
If he dishes out any bull about fairness and allowing people to fulfil their ambitions in game ignore him he is just trying to be a cuddly bunny
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being
Civilization is a state of Society, not philosophy. A civilization does not mean "good" morals. Of course, being an anthropologist I imagine my definition (the technical definition) is probably not what you meant anyway. But I thought I'd put that in here anyway, quibble though it may be.
@Steelwing
I will point out they are opening their groups to applications from anyone. This does not mean they will accept all those applications, despite what may or may not be stated. Also, the people they are recruiting are mostly EE or heavily-invested into this game. Those peoples are very rarely going to be detrimental to the guilds, and they usually are going to spend their time trying to find the "right" guild to join, seeing as they have little else to do except quibble around.
@Mrs. Steelwing
gratz to the pater.
I wish you and your "cuddle bunny" success in your goals. Unless you wish to use that power in order to subjugate the freedoms and equality of the people of Two Rivers, in which case I hope (and will try to make) you burn ;)
@Steelwing
I will point out they are opening their groups to applications from anyone. This does not mean they will accept all those applications, despite what may or may not be stated. Also, the people they are recruiting are mostly EE or heavily-invested into this game. Those peoples are very rarely going to be detrimental to the guilds, and they usually are going to spend their time trying to find the "right" guild to join, seeing as they have little else to do except quibble around.
I haven't had any applications turned down yet nor in fact have I had to do anything except register under a name and say hi I want to join (with the exception of Pax who have this two week period thingy)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish you and your "cuddle bunny" success in your goals. Unless you wish to use that power in order to subjugate the freedoms and equality of the people of Two Rivers, in which case I hope (and will try to make) you burn ;)
Freedom and equality only belong to those that can enforce them. If you can't you belong under the boot heels of tyrants. If you wish I can suggest to the cuddly one that we take the latter part of your statement as a preemptive declaration of war
Two weeks and a vote, yes. We also have a member group system and varied security access.
That said it ain't very important right now. Right now is just words, and only occasionally entertaining.
Note to self should I decide to apply in future ensure that I entertain in my application :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Note to self should I decide to apply in future ensure that I entertain in my application :)Two weeks and a vote, yes. We also have a member group system and varied security access.
That said it ain't very important right now. Right now is just words, and only occasionally entertaining.
That would certainly help
Honestly you have the exact same infosec right now that most members have. Unless of course you want to help pretty up our wiki or come up with meet and greet topics.
Note to self should I decide to apply in future ensure that I entertain in my application :)Two weeks and a vote, yes. We also have a member group system and varied security access.
That said it ain't very important right now. Right now is just words, and only occasionally entertaining.
That would certainly help
Honestly you have the exact same infosec right now that most members have. Unless of course you want to help pretty up our wiki or come up with meet and greet topics.
As you know I have visited your site and as you say it is open enough (except officer forums) that I have never felt the need to slip a ringer on. I did try once to register for Friends of Pax status so I could post a comment or two but the site disagreed either with my browser, my proxy service, the tor exit node, the lack of scripts available or the cookies rules (or one of a number of other security measures that bounds my browser)and wouldn't let me register.
I heard about that, a shame. Not really much can be done about it :)
Its not really a worry I will just do what I did last time and pass the comment via one of my Pax Pm contacts :)
THAT MAN HAS FAILED TO TIP HIS HAT, HE MUST BE STOPPED
THAT MAN HAS FAILED TO TIP HIS HAT TO NIHIMON, HE MUST BE STOPPED
Fix'd.
What? At least I'm not doing it to someone else's posts.
@Mrs. Steelwing
Ah, but what else could it be? I neither declare war nor do I negotiate peace. I am simply the watcher.
You do not need to actually formally declare war you merely need to provide a reason to consider you an enemy of our state which the statement I quoted implies.
Remember actions have consequences that includes what you say. Also remember that if we decide to join the game we will be looking to make an example of some group or settlement early on in the game "pour encourager les autres" as they say.
Having said that however we will probably wait until we actually decide we are coming to pick our example so you are safe enough for now :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being
Civilization is a state of Society, not philosophy.
Interesting. Analysis is incomplete until the analyzed elements of the whole are reintegrated. I am curious how it is that you would distinguish the object of the philosophy of a societal state from the society of that state.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can state my ideals for PFO, but I don't believe I can rightly state 'our' ideals for PFO. I suspect I am not alone.
My personal ideal for PFO is to craft of my virtual life a bold and rewarding saga that I might savor in memory long after it is gone. I would wish to grow wiser than I am, and to share what wisdom I learn.
What is your ideal, Steelwing?
As I notice my husband failed to actually answer your question I thought I would tell you what his answer should be in order of priority.
1) To ensure that the people he is responsible for (that is our settlement) have fun and enjoy the game
2) To be the dominant force in the river kingdoms and make others tremble with fear at the thought of crossing us
If he dishes out any bull about fairness and allowing people to fulfil their ambitions in game ignore him he is just trying to be a cuddly bunny
<bows>Well met.
Candor is a feast for the curious. Where powers may or may not disagree, inevitably is clarity esteemed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In response to your question, being:
People think, they are not thought. The philosophy of a group comes from that group's world view, not the other way around. The attempt to define knowledge can only be made when a certain knowledge and some fundamental beliefs are held, though what those beliefs are can, of course, are determined by the individual case.
An example:
The Mayans were a slaving, blood sacrificing society. They held the fundamentals that nature would no longer continue in its manner should they quit sacrificing, etc. Coming from this position of blood and sweat they tried to explain the world around them e.g. how the world was created, who was what, where humans came from. Does this mean they were not a "civilization"? You could argue that this is not philosophy but I would ask how this is any different from any other "study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence".
So what, then, is civilization you ask? A good question, and one still being argued I'll admit, but the short list is:
Civilization (Large-scale/State Societies)
1) Large, Dense Populations
2) Agriculture-Intensive
3) Market Economy
4) Complex Division of Labor
5) Social Stratification
6) Monumental Architecture
with things that are attributed almost exclusively to state-societies being Warfare (Conquest) and Slavery, among a few others I cannot remember.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
People are to themselves what they think and feel. To others they are what they do, but to themselves they are what they believe.In response to your question, being:
People think, they are not thought.
The philosophy of a group comes from that group's world view, not the other way around.Untrue. While the philosophy of a group results from that group's world view, their world view is in part also a product of their philosophy. The world view of anarchist is certainly changed by his anarchy. And so on. Republican views on the facts versus Democrat views on the facts are illustrative of this principle. World views are definitely shaped by held philosophies.
The attempt to define knowledge can only be made when a certain knowledge and some fundamental beliefs are held, though what those beliefs are can, of course, are determined by the individual case.
An example:
The Mayans were a slaving, blood sacrificing society. They held the fundamentals that nature would no longer continue in its manner should they quit sacrificing, etc. Coming from this position of blood and sweat they tried to explain the world around them e.g. how the world was created, who was what, where humans came from. Does this mean they were not a "civilization"? You could argue that this is not philosophy but I would ask how this is any different from any other "study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence".
So what, then, is civilization you ask? A good question, and one still being argued I'll admit, but the short list is:
Civilization (Large-scale/State Societies)
1) Large, Dense Populations
2) Agriculture-Intensive
3) Market Economy
4) Complex Division of Labor
5) Social Stratification
6) Monumental Architecture
with things that are attributed almost exclusively to state-societies being Warfare (Conquest) and Slavery, among a few others I cannot remember.
Those are characteristics of a thing rather than the thing itself. The civilization is more toward its thought, its culture, its philosophy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) I do not see how this contradicts what I stated. This is kind of a chicken and the egg argument and the egg does in fact come first. You cannot think until you are born, and those thoughts generally revolve around things like "it hurts" "I don't wanna leave it was comfy" "why is it so bright" and other subliminal thinking, quickly followed by learning what is what, up from down, and the other processes of being human, and later on the processes of schooling, learning normalcy, and acculturating.
2) I was making a difference between Politics and Philosophy, and while certainly they influence each other heavily, they are not the same. Further a person's or group's "world view" determines their culture and is in turn determined by their beliefs. I was taking philosophy by the technical definition of "the study of..." as I mentioned earlier, so if you insist on making the boundaries between definitions fuzzy, and upon using vulgar (as in common) definitions, then certainly you are absolutely correct. However, according to the technical definitions I gave, I do not feel my statement was erred (though it may be poorly worded).
3) In this case, you have got the wrong of it according to myself. Again, technical definition.
Thought: The action of thinking/producing an idea. Based off what you perceive, which as we all know is influenced by perspective.
Culture: Learned patterned behavior. Based off of what you have been taught and have experienced. Can be both "conforming" and unconforming" as in following what you have been taught or going contrary to that.
Philosophy: The study of nature, existence, and reality. Based off of your thoughts and your culture and all sorts of other arbitrary things.
Civilization as an ambiguous term is ambiguous. If we are going to argue ambiguity versus technicalities then I'll just keel over now and be the happier for it, for surely in most common concepts I will be sorely wrong, and gladly so. But that said, these points brought up are not civilization. Are you saying barbarians (which by it's arbitrary definition means the lack of civilization) cannot think, have no culture, and don't practice philosophy simply because they are not civilized? If so, I'd suggest you take up your burden and go help those poor saps reach enlightenment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) I do not see how this contradicts what I stated.You said "The philosophy of a group comes from that group's world view, not the other way around." I replied that indeed the 'other way' is also true, a contradiction to what you asserted.
2) I was making a difference between Politics and Philosophy, and while certainly they influence each other heavily, they are not the same.They are not the same but they are both part of something of which they are elements.
Further a person's or group's "world view" determines their culture and is in turn determined by their beliefs. I was taking philosophy by the technical definition of "the study of..." as I mentioned earlier, so if you insist on making the boundaries between definitions fuzzy, and upon using vulgar (as in common) definitions, then certainly you are absolutely correct.It is certainly not common to consider the world as a whole rather than as discrete parts, Brother. "Philosophy" is Greek, It means the (intellectual) love of Wisdom, whatever your modal, so-called 'technical' definitions prefer to recommend.
However, according to the technical definitions I gave, I do not feel my statement was erred (though it may be poorly worded).
If you rely on dictionaries rather than etymology you are limited to modern interpretations that can be more convenient to specific and transitory interests than lasting scholarship should countenance. But you are still matriculating and bright and practical counsel should certainly recommend you conform to your school's preferences. Just don't expect universal suffrage of parochial metrics outside.
3) In this case, you have got the wrong of it according to myself. Again, technical definition.
Liberation from the rhetorical chains of 'technical definition' might be uplifting.
Thought: The action of thinking/producing an idea. Based off what you perceive, which as we all know is influenced by perspective.A pragmatist's point of view. Perhaps mechanist. There are two other schools of thought besides the pragmatic.
Culture: Learned patterned behavior. Based off of what you have been taught and have experienced. Can be both "conforming" and unconforming" as in following what you have been taught or going contrary to that.Sorry, but that is perhaps the most limited definition of culture I ever have read. Not untrue, but horrifically incomplete to the point of being misleading.
Philosophy: The study of nature, existence, and reality. Based off of your thoughts and your culture and all sorts of other arbitrary things.
Thank you Brother. I also have a dictionary, and I assure you a dictionary is a very weak crutch. A dictionary is convenient proxy for reasoning and argumentation. It is not an authority but a reference. It has its uses, but one should endeavor to use the correct tool for a particular job. The correct tool is reasoning, and your brilliant mind. There must be reasoning for you. Reasoning I would respect. Throwing your dictionary at me is like attempting to parry my saber with your goose-down pillow.
When you have graduated I wish to recommend to you GWF Hegel's The Philosophy of History.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A dictionary is a weak crutch indeed. Good thing I wasn't using one eh? ^^
I do not think any of the definitions I gave were specific denotations that can be found in a dictionary. Culture is "learned patterned behavior" I do not see how that is in anyway limited, for it is only limited by what the human mind can learn...
I'm not going to bother with each point you bring up. I will just reiterate: those are the teachings of anthropology, and that is the definition for civilization, and to say someone who is not civilized can't have the love for wisdom, the reasoning, and the other things to me is just wrong is all, and I assure you this is not found in any dictionary. As I said, it is pointless to argue technically derived vs. arbitrarily derived (and I assure you I don't agree with all the technicalities stated, that is just what they are).
Either way, to continue this discussion is absolutely pointless on this thread considering we have gone from the topic of what civilization is to the subject of whether or not my figurative dictionary is a strong enough argument or not. I was simply trying to point out that the definition of civilization you used was somewhat narrow is all. I think we have gone sufficiently tangential to the OP.
As an aside: I just started reading Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and was wondering what your views of his opinions on the fact that every man seeks to good deeds.
tl;dr: What are we doing here, exactly? I have no intention of becoming a new UNC & co. vs. Being et al. (no offense). As I said, in a debate of technical or arbitrary technical always loses, and for good reason. I had just aimed to point out a flaw in how you were describing civilization and clearly I've overstepped my bounds, for which I apologize.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On a further aside:
I've actually already read Hegel, as you will see in one of my earlier posts in some thread or another. I enjoy his arguments but I find his argument for a "Weltgeist" to be fundamentally flawed. Everyone has their own nature and learning. I'm a much larger fan of Foucault but of course he is flawed too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As an aside: I just started reading Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and was wondering what your views of his opinions on the fact that every man seeks to good deeds.
Responding to the important part of your response: Bravo. The Nichomachean Ethics and Aristotle in general is an admirable vista point along the way. It is one of my favorites. Beware of Aristotle, however, as he is notoriously bad for not checking his own conclusions.
tl;dr: What are we doing here, exactly? I have no intention of becoming a new UNC & co. vs. Being et al. (no offense). As I said, in a debate of technical or arbitrary technical always loses, and for good reason. I had just aimed to point out a flaw in how you were describing civilization and clearly I've overstepped my bounds, for which I apologize.
You didn't overstep your bounds in my view, you only erred in thinking I would be daunted by your so-called 'technical' definitions. Those may well be the anthropologist's standard, but your definition of 'culture' is only an excessively spare skeletal characteristic common among all cultures. It does not inform anyone of what culture is.
My recommendation referring you to Hegel was an attempt to get you to look at one of the other schools of thought, that of German Idealism (Kant would have been good as well and he is more approachable but also so very much easier. Reading Hegel is a Herculean act, but fascinating nonetheless. The third school of thought was a reaction to Hegel called Marxism. To understand Marx you should understand Hegel. If you did as I recommended you would have a more balanced intellectual worldview, in my ever-so-humble opinion, than if you self-limit to American pragmatism as your school appears dedicated.
What we are doing here is conversation. It could arrive at a set of pronounceable ideals for PFO as a game, per Steelwing's suggestion (though he may not have recognized it as a suggestion).
If I step off here, off the deep end, to see what it might look like, then... If we can arrive at a shared understanding of what we seek in PFO we may eventually project what the future game culture will be. I'd prefer it weren't a spreadsheet. I'd rather it should be alive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On a further aside:
I've actually already read Hegel, as you will see in one of my earlier posts in some thread or another. I enjoy his arguments but I find his argument for a "Weltgeist" to be fundamentally flawed. Everyone has their own nature and learning. I'm a much larger fan of Foucault but of course he is flawed too.
Well done then. None of us are without flaw, do you see. We will only be perfect, or past-perfect, when we are dead. Finished. Kaput.
Pragmatism, from the Greek for 'doing' roughly, is also flawed. Part of the problem is that a great dialectical conversation was disrupted by the second world war. The three great schools were in conversation, but the German Idealist school was inducted into one of the party's war propaganda machine and has not been trusted since. Without it Pragmatism and Communism are only at stalemate (though as an economic system pragmatism was more... practical, obviously).
The third school Idealism is needed, IMO, if our western civilization is to achieve a new and more advanced world-view. Without it our problems may prove insoluble. Pragmatism is beset by monopoly and this could be its undoing.
But truly I digress, and should apologize. Thank you for your tolerance, and the allowance for my speaking my mind.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My only statements to bring to bear at those you posted just now are these.
It goes against my grain to decide what something will be like before is happens, in this case the culture of in-game PfO. I'm eager to see what it will be like, but I'm not going to try to determine this before it happens (historical particularism and whatnot)
The definition of Culture presented is of course skeletal. Culture is based off the individual and the society beliefs, and I am not in the habit of determining other's beliefs for them. As such a single specific definition of what culture is seems to be impossible, as nobody can possibly know all the base lines of everyone else's cultures, and so cannot make a specific definition that includes all of them.