| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On both the Paizo forums and the Goblin Works forums, I am calling for players to stream/record/document their experiences starting new characters, particularly their experiences in and around starter settlements.
I am also urging folks to report to Goblin Works all players that interfere with your ability to learn to play your new characters, particularly near the starter settlements.
Documenting this may provide a name and shame effect that would allow company/settlement leaders to see what their folks are actually doing.
Documenting this may also show Goblin Works what is occurring so that they can decide what is worthy of the ban-hammer, as well as clarifying that for folks who are apparently horrible at interpreting the devs' intentions for the new player experience.
Yes Thod, and his plan strikes me as broader and more unwieldy as well as containing activity sanctioned by the devs.
I'm all about the bannable offenses in this thread.
In other words, you wish to tempt the Devil and see how far you can push him before he bites your head off, but seeing as you LIKE your head, you're using someone else's and watching what happens to them.
About right?
I'm not sure I get your drift.
I already planned to report bannable offenses, but was urging others to do so, also.
I started the thread before reading what Ryan wrote (almost simultaneously) in the Bank Campers thread:
"I don't want people being attacked in NPC Settlements, and we are going to have to write some policies about that if it becomes a continuous problem."
Currently I'm busy watching that topic, popcorn in hand, after someone AFTER Ryan's post seemed to tell everyone to get stuffed.
TL:DR Version - You want to know how naughty you can be before it's considered a bannable offense.
No, not at all.
I actually think I'm on the same page as the devs.
I really have zero interest in killing people at NPC settlements, and never have.
I'm all about *meaningful* PvP and my rep has been MAXED since WoT began (except for one tower battle with Phaeros where people were so into the fighting that almost a minute passed before people realized the tower was captured and our PvP window had closed).
Before WoT my only kills were all 2 or more hexes past NPC settlements.
I'm not vying for sainthood, I just don't see anything worth fighting for at NPC settlements, as well as the fact that I want this game to succeed, and ganking newbies doesn't seem like a path to the game's success.
Goblin Squad Member
|
TL:DR Version - You want to know how naughty you can be before it's considered a bannable offense.Interesting tactic
You're incorrectly using that one. It applies when an argument is made, yet here we have none. I'm not attacking Midnight's position, simply trying to understand it. For that the argument must be restated in other words. It's called clarification, a non-fallacy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TL:DR Version - You want to know how naughty you can be before it's considered a bannable offense.
This is not an inquiry as phrased, it is an assertion. That assertion incorrectly encapsulates Midnight's position, thus it (perhaps accidentally) creates a straw man.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TL:DR Version - You want to know how naughty you can be before it's considered a bannable offense.This is not an inquiry as phrased, it is an assertion. That assertion incorrectly encapsulates Midnight's position, thus it (perhaps accidentally) creates a straw man.
Were this the case, every posit made in law enforcement could be considered straw man.
"You planted the drugs on your friend and expected him to take the heat. Is that about right?"
The inquiry was phrased concisely at the end of the original comment. The rest was merely positing his intent.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
TL:DR Version - You want to know how naughty you can be before it's considered a bannable offense.This is not an inquiry as phrased, it is an assertion. That assertion incorrectly encapsulates Midnight's position, thus it (perhaps accidentally) creates a straw man.Were this the case, every posit made in law enforcement could be considered straw man.
"You planted the drugs on your friend and expected him to take the heat. Is that about right?"
The inquiry was phrased concisely at the end of the original comment. The rest was merely positing his intent.
When it is a "restatement" of the statement of the victim, that intentionally adds an incriminating element or negative connotation not in the original, then yes, it is a straw man. It would also be bullying if done with the subtext that a denial would be attacked (eg "were you lying then, or are you lying now", after someone objects to the hostile rephrasing). Whether or not it is legal is a question for the court.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TL:DR Version - You want to know how naughty you can be before it's considered a bannable offense.This is not an inquiry as phrased, it is an assertion. That assertion incorrectly encapsulates Midnight's position, thus it (perhaps accidentally) creates a straw man.Were this the case, every posit made in law enforcement could be considered straw man.
"You planted the drugs on your friend and expected him to take the heat. Is that about right?"
The inquiry was phrased concisely at the end of the original comment. The rest was merely positing his intent.
I notice you added a question to the example posit. That is pretty important, because it leaves open room for the other person to reply:
"No, that is not what is happening here."
Your assertion was phrased in the definitive style. It's reads like:
"This is what is happening, this is why you are doing the thing."
Again, perhaps incidentally, as phrased it incorrectly encapsulates the position. A straw man is established, but it seems like it is quickly torn down before it becomes the new focus of the conversation.
Pointing out a straw man only serves one purpose, to remove the bogus position from the conversation so as to concentrate on what is actually being proposed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TL:DR Version - You want to know how naughty you can be before it's considered a bannable offense.This is not an inquiry as phrased, it is an assertion. That assertion incorrectly encapsulates Midnight's position, thus it (perhaps accidentally) creates a straw man.Were this the case, every posit made in law enforcement could be considered straw man.
"You planted the drugs on your friend and expected him to take the heat. Is that about right?"
The inquiry was phrased concisely at the end of the original comment. The rest was merely positing his intent.
I notice you added a question to the example posit. That is pretty important, because it leaves open room for the other person to reply:
"No, that is not what is happening here."
Your assertion was phrased in the definitive style. It's reads like:
"This is what is happening, this is why you are doing the thing."
Again, perhaps incidentally, as phrased it incorrectly encapsulates the position. A straw man is established, but it seems like it is quickly torn down before it becomes the new focus of the conversation.
Pointing out a straw man only serves one purpose, to remove the bogus position from the conversation so as to concentrate on what is actually being proposed.
I notice you didn't read my original post if you think I added a question to the example posit. I left all the same room for a reply that you attest I left here, merely shortening "Is that about right?" to "About right?" in my original post.
The definitive style you claim I posted in is the very nature of a posit.
posit - noun - a statement that is made on the assumption that it will prove to be true. verb - assume as a fact; put forward as a basis of argument.
When stating something as a fact, it carries a certain definitiveness, don't you think?
Aside from that, there really wasn't a need to point it out unless you felt Midnight incapable of responding. Seeing how the response sufficed, the rest is merely wordplay.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The portion I quoted is stated as fact, and that is the portion I described as a straw man.
As for everything else, on reflection even phrasing it like a question might be a straw man, since like you say it assumes the invented position is fact.
Also you are correct that it doesn't really matter, as no one is holding on to the false position as fact anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's ok. I'm from Golgotha. I'm used to people assuming evil intentions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's ok. I'm from Golgotha. I'm used to people assuming evil intentions.
Any excuse is sufficient... Can't fight these bad intentions
Why don't you just gather up a group of PK killers and police the starter zone? Sounds like more fun and easier!!!
After reading what Ryan wrote today:
"I don't want people being attacked in NPC Settlements, and we are going to have to write some policies about that if it becomes a continuous problem."
I will not be doing combat on ANYONE in NPC settlements. (I wasn't before, and today seems like a particularly stupid time to start).
@Kradlum
A typical day in Marchmont used to be:
New character shows up.
New character gets a recruitment pitch from Atheory for AGC.
New character gets a recruitment pitch from a Golgothan.
New character mulls over his choices.
New character later gets harassed and calls on the only people who have tried to befriend him.
---
Because of what Ryan wrote yesterday, people seemed to behave better in Marchmont, and thus Golgothans weren't being called in.
I *do* hope someone besides Atheory was recruiting, though.
But I'll admit that yesterday, I was so puzzled trying to figure out what I needed to do to get my tutorial bags for Midnight, that I forgot to recruit while I was there. Maybe I'm not the only one.
Oh, and Atheory *was* recruiting while I was there. You go, Atheory!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kradlum
A typical day in Marchmont used to be:
New character shows up.
New character gets a recruitment pitch from Atheory for AGC.
New character gets a recruitment pitch from a Golgothan.
New character mulls over his choices.
New character later gets harassed and calls on the only people who have tried to befriend him.
---
Because of what Ryan wrote yesterday, people seemed to behave better in Marchmont, and thus Golgothans weren't being called in.
I *do* hope someone besides Atheory was recruiting, though.
But I'll admit that yesterday, I was so puzzled trying to figure out what I needed to do to get my tutorial bags for Midnight, that I forgot to recruit while I was there. Maybe I'm not the only one.
Oh, and Atheory *was* recruiting while I was there. You go, Atheory!
Side Note: Did your tutorial bags contain expendables (spells and maneuvers), consumables (potions, tokens, arrows and charges), both, or neither?
It was at the end of my evening with many resources in my bag to distract me (so shiny), so I didn't even look as I banked the contents of my inventory.
Tonight or tomorrow I hope to have time to run the tutorial with my 23 other characters, and I will try and provide a sense of what I got.
And if people want to turn this into a tangential comparison of the contents of tutorial bags, as the thread starter I have no objection.