Reaction to Staff Statements on Game Status

[TheTrickster 2,284]

1 hour ago, Drayka said:

@TheTricksterHave you ever watched Saving Mr Banks? It's a really good film, and very enlightening as to the original author's intent.

Yes I have, and bizarrely it ALSO twists the story.  She was NEVER happy about what Disney Corp did to her characters. She only signed off on a stage production with the express condition that nobody who had worked on producing the movie have anything to do with the stage production.

 

In self-serving manner they then did the same to the late Ms Goff herself.   That a large corporation would so twist the story of a person's life and expressed opinions as well as their own dealing with her in order to justify their twisting of that person's intellectual property is indeed enlightening.  It really does not visit her original intent in any truthful manner at all. After giving her work the Disney treatment, they then went on and gave the poor woman herself the Disney treatment.

 

Edit:  Not for nothing Saving Mr Banks was made in the lead-up to both Mary Poppins being selected by the US Library of Congress as worthy of preservation AND the release of a Disney-produced sequel to Mary Poppins.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by TheTrickster

[Drayka 485]

If people didn't even try to understand people they don't automatically understand, however much they initially distort them by doing so, no-one could ever aspire to talk to anyone who wasn't exactly like them.

 

The point is not to avoid distortion, but to attempt to overcome it, and that requires creative license to bridge the gap, and humility to admit how much of a struggle it is to strive for such things.

[TheTrickster 2,284]

36 minutes ago, Drayka said:

The point is not to avoid distortion, but to attempt to overcome it, and that requires creative license to bridge the gap, and humility to admit how much of a struggle it is to strive for such things.

Well, the example under discussion is no attempt to overcome distortion but to extend and amplify it and convince people it is no distortion at all.  It was Disney corp's complete lack of humility in "Saving..." that really stood out to me.  They completely disregarded the author's intent and wishes but later, when she is no longer around to argue with them, they double-down and try to paint a picture that she liked what they did with her work, when the opposite is true.

 

Avoiding distortion is indeed what we should all be striving to achieve.  That is what "overcoming" it really entails, not using creative license to add further distortion.  Pretty soon signal:noise approaches zero otherwise.

 

 

[Drayka 485]

Overcoming is a process, as with evolution. Let it not be said that a missing link is an invalid creature of no purpose, but a testimony to the journey betwixt one state and the next. Mutation, derivation, exemplification. But above all mercy. And mercy is not always a quiet and timid little mouse; sometimes it is a raging storm of fire and ice.

[TheTrickster 2,284]

I think we are way of topic by now, but anyway...

 

Mercy is to me never timid or little.  But then it is also to me never raging.

 

• Justice = getting what you deserve
• Mercy = NOT getting what you deserve
• Grace = getting what you DON'T deserve.

I think we may more be talking about grace than mercy.  🙂

 

 

[Drayka 485]

Our definitions differ. For me, mercy is getting what you need, regardless of whether or not you deserve it, and certainly regardless of its cost to anyone, simply because you truly need it, above all else, above even what you want more than anything. Grace, is the ability to recognise the justice of mercy.

[TheTrickster 2,284]

Then I would say, yes, our definitions definitely differ.  

Edited August 16, 2021 by TheTrickster

[Drayka 485]

To get back to topic, what this community needs, isn't something that we will all necessarily enjoy, agree with or want. Sometimes, giving one group what it needs, costs another group what it wants, but not necessarily what it also needs, if not directly, then indirectly.

 

And sometimes, what we all need, regardless of what we would like in some fantasy of a perfectly impossible reality - is something as genuine, unvarnished and 'improper', as an authority figure losing their temper over the ill-treatment of others.

 

It's not about I, or them. It's about us; all of us. From the lowliest newbie to the investor. From the grandma who doesn't know how to use the internet, let alone understand what all this MMORPG stuff is, to the hacker who knows far more about computers than anyone is truly at-ease with. From the creator, to the cat that insists on jumping on the keyboard at the worst possible moment.

 

Enki earned my faith in him with that announcement, where before I only had hope that he deserved it. And if this community cannot all comprehend why he did what he did, and said what he said, then I will have faith in him on their behalf too.

[TheTrickster 2,284]

23 minutes ago, Drayka said:

And if this community cannot all comprehend why he did what he did, and said what he said, then I will have faith in him on their behalf too.

No, don't do that.  You cannot endorse that action on my behalf because I expressly and explicitly do not endorse it - and saying that you have faith in a staff member because of that action is indeed endorse the action.  Likewise, do not attribute my objection to it to be based on a failure to understand it.  The post was inappropriate, which means that it was subjectively not suited to the context.  Objectively, it may well have been necessary, but not in isolation and not as the first communique from the HGM after a much-complained-about silence of months' duration.

 

A professional authority figure should not ever lose their temper in their professional capacity - full stop.  Imagine police thinking like that.

Edited August 16, 2021 by TheTrickster

[Drayka 485]

2 minutes ago, TheTrickster said:

No, don't do that.  You cannot endorse that action on my behalf because I expressly and explicitly do not endorse it - and saying that you have faith in a staff member because of that action is indeed endorse the action.  Likewise, do not attribute my objection to it to be based on a failure to understand it.  The post was inappropriate, which means that it was subjectively not suited to the context.  Objectively, it may well have been necessary, but not in isolation and not as the first communique from the HGM after a much-complained-about silence of months' duration.

 

A professional authority figure should not ever lose their temper in their professional capacity - full stop.  Imagine police thinking like that.

Having faith in someone isn't the same as agreeing with what they did. I'm not saying you have to like it, want it, agree with it or even stick around because of it. Faith isn't a reduction of free will, free thought, or even the right to be angry. That's the POINT.

 

I'm saying, pardon my language, that I believe that even if he was the biggest screw-up on the planet in your eyes, he has the basic human right to be that, and your life is richer for the challenges he brings to it by being so. That's having faith in another person.

[TheTrickster 2,284]

1 hour ago, Drayka said:

That's having faith in another person.

We clearly use language differently.  😉

[Oreo 5,793]

🤣

[Tomatoes 276]

1 hour ago, TheTrickster said:

We clearly use language differently.  😉

Not everyone communicates in the same manner

 

Not everyone has the same experience in life.

sometimes its wildly different. If you are not prepared to face that, that is on you.

[TheTrickster 2,284]

33 minutes ago, Tomatoes said:

Not everyone communicates in the same manner

 

Not everyone has the same experience in life.

sometimes its wildly different. If you are not prepared to face that, that is on you.

Funny, I was explicitly acknowledging exactly that.  Whereas, "that is on you" would seem to not.   😂

[Drayka 485]

10 hours ago, TheTrickster said:

We clearly use language differently.  😉

It would seem that there is enough evidence now to say that we have different priorities, and this affects how we use language.

 

You use the measure of what a person deserves, for three different words. I have no idea what you use as a yardstick for what someone deserves, but it is 100% guaranteed to be a different yardstick to what I must use.

 

My own language use focuses on want, need, intent, and context.

Yours would seem to focus on worth, judgement, and control; but that's only translating into my own definitions of those.

 

PvE has this premise where X is worth Y, based on a lot of complex, involved systems of control and regulation.

I cannot relate to a person's time and energy having a stable fiscal value AT ALL. Even with only myself in the equation, the cost of doing X activity is so unstable, that at one moment all the money in the world couldn't bribe me into doing it, and another moment all the money in the world couldn't bribe someone else into allowing me to do it for them. Only machines seem capable of this kind of relationship - I input X amount of energy, it outputs Y amount of mechanical work.

 

PvE has these premises of absolute judgements - X is always wrong - and ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

I cannot function there, because I cannot even begin to corroborate that. My brain has this nasty habit of almost immediately finding situations where doing X is the only way to do the RIGHT thing, at a certain time, in a certain context.

 

And as for control, between fixed fiscal values and absolute judgements, under no circumstances could I exercise even self-control in a PvE environment, let alone make an educated guess on the prerequisites of controlling the actions of others.

 

Thus, I can only even begin to function on a PvP server where Trade channel is always silent. And I truly wish that the default permissions were OFF, because it often does more harm then good - it injures allies more often than it protects against enemies, because allies are present 24/7 being inconvenienced by them. But I can't even build a house off-deed without my 'absolute right of ownership' being auto-protected to the extent of overriding all attempts to disable it. And that cripples a lot of sandbox designs to the extent that structures are basically more trouble than they are worth. Why? Because it's PvE values FORCED on a PvP server, where it doesn't belong and cannot be switched off under any circumstances. And no, I can't use fences instead, because they aren't multi-storey.

 

PvP is basically stuck in the dark-ages in terms of sandbox functionality. And guess what I hear on the forums every day? How the developers aren't doing enough for PvE citizens who are SO convinced that MORE ownership, MORE unilateral judgements, and MORE ability to control everything and anything, especially with money, is the solution to EVERYTHING. So yeah, I empathise with the people who say Wurm was better back in the days of Wild, or whatever it was called, even though I recognise that those days are long gone and I never played Wurm then. And despite the fact that I see PvE as having an irreplaceable function in Wurm Online's future.

 

But it's NOT all about JUST YOU. And while paying for stuff with money has its place, it does NOT buy you slaves of the living, breathing, RL-human variety.

 

If I had 'Seen Red', I would have said a LOT more than Enki did. Therefore from my perspective, his post was LAUDABLY restrained and diplomatic. And why would I have said more? Because I REALLY CARE about your future too. YOUR wants and needs, not just what happens to my segment of the community.

 

I accept, that without PvE, this game wouldn't survive. That you doing your thing - which I CANNOT do, regardless of whether or not I want to - is vital to this game. But I don't expect the same in return because I know I won't get it from the playerbase. I didn't even honestly expect it from the staff.

 

And IF I have misconstrued Enki's meaning, it is because my NEED for PROOF that someone in authority values PvP as much as PvE, despite our intrinsically-disobedient culture, overrides my ability to interpret his words otherwise. And I'll take that mercy, as gracefully as I can.

Edited August 16, 2021 by Drayka

[Beanbag 239]

On 8/11/2021 at 6:31 PM, MordosKull said:

 

 

You sure you're above the fray? Nice trolling though. The majority of the community has spoken and staff has responded. Onward and upward hopefully soon. 

 

"Majority"

lol

[Drayka 485]

56 minutes ago, Beanbag said:

"Majority"

lol

 

@MordosKullWho is this majority, and what did they say?

1. I agree with what I think you mean.
2. I disagree with what I think you mean.
3. I agree with some key points of what I think you mean.
4. I disagree with some key points of what I think you mean.
5. I have no clue what you mean.
6. I consider myself too naiive of key information required to reach a judgement on this matter.
7. I consider that my input is irrelevant to what will happen, and therefore it's not worth my time and energy to get involved.
8. I have an opinion that is completely different to yours, and I don't believe you capable of taking that into account.
9. I am not even aware of your existence, or this topic.
10. None of the above; explanation included.

 

Random fact; WO Official Discord - and that's definitely not a total figure for Wurm players, as I keep meeting people who aren't subscribed to that Discord - assuming script-update on the post I'm looking at - @time of posting has 3,826 members.

 

How many of just these people have commented on this topic? Let alone everyone else. Forum membership currently stands at 32131
Total Members

 

Even with 1000 confirmed 1.& 3.votes, and no other votes, that would STILL not be the 'majority' of Wurm's community agreeing with your personal perspective, assuming that they understood what you meant, as opposed to only thinking that they thought they did.

Edited August 16, 2021 by Drayka

[Wilczan 2,048]

Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?

[TheTrickster 2,284]

11 hours ago, Drayka said:

You use the measure of what a person deserves, for three different words. I have no idea what you use as a yardstick for what someone deserves, but it is 100% guaranteed to be a different yardstick to what I must use.

 

My own language use focuses on want, need, intent, and context.

Yours would seem to focus on worth, judgement, and control; but that's only translating into my own definitions of those.

 3 words.  I defined 3 words, which indeed are related to what is earned, because they were cogent to the context.  3, out of a vocab of some 50,000, but you go right ahead and make a judgement on my entire use of language (and therefore my mindset) because I explained how I understand 3 related words because YOU had used one of them.  Oh, wait, you just did.  

 

Edit:  You do know that your talk of "basic human right" to anything is all about what people deserve, I hope.  

Edited August 17, 2021 by TheTrickster

[TheTrickster 2,284]

nevermind

Edited August 17, 2021 by TheTrickster

[TheTrickster 2,284]

nvm

Edited August 17, 2021 by TheTrickster

[Drayka 485]

2 hours ago, TheTrickster said:

nvm

?

Apologies if I touched a nerve. Wasn't my intention. No idea what was said before edit.

But I won't try to understand you again, which by definition must include a series of errors and refinements, if the process stresses you that much.

[TheTrickster 2,284]

On 8/17/2021 at 2:44 PM, Drayka said:

?

Apologies if I touched a nerve. Wasn't my intention. No idea what was said before edit.

But I won't try to understand you again, which by definition must include a series of errors and refinements, if the process stresses you that much.

The ones I removed were unrelated to our ongoing discussion.

 

No, understanding does not by definition include a series of errors and refinements, and I wasn't stressed.  It seemed like you were not trying to understand me anyway, so much as trying to make a judgment and categorization of me.  It wasn't touching a nerve, it was overstepping and in fact doing exactly what you were attributing to me, attempting to judge and control.  I was trying to be deliberate and clear in my communication, and when it became clear to me that you were using "mercy", "grace" and "faith" in your own particular and dare I say it peculiar (as in non-standard) way was expressing my acknowledgement of that, with the knowledge that communication from that point could become incredibly opaque because we are not using a common language.  I don't know what other words you understand differently to me.  I am a bit of a precisionist with language and will, where possible, use unambiguous words in an unambiguous way but if even that means that the message you receive could be the opposite of the message I send,  then meaningful communication ends.

 

You making declarative statements about me is not a process of understanding except by the same sort of mental shorthand used to "understand" people of other cultures and backgrounds.  It isn't a stressful process, it is an objectionable practice.

 

As to the post I didn't excise, It was intended to be somewhat abrupt to make a point, but was still mild compared to what I have seen here.

 

EDIT:  Note; I say this without heat.  I have long lived around people with varying degrees of ASD, FAS and other issues affecting communication and I have found that what may seem to some as a blunt or even rude statement (i.e. "Don't say that because xyz."  or "When you say X1 people take it to mean X2" or "Doing/Saying ABC is not the way to speak to Q group of people") has actually been a good way to communicate with people who are overly literal and lacking in discernment of social cues.  Intentionally exaggerating those cues is another practice I have found useful.  It doesn't mean that I am necessarily offended, just trying to handle the meta-message.  Your mileage may vary.

 

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by TheTrickster

[Tomatoes 276]

33 minutes ago, TheTrickster said:

No, understanding does not by definition include a series of errors and refinements

Actually it does -  that is how 'science' works. a series of refinements in knowledge that may have errors. 

 

33 minutes ago, TheTrickster said:

I don't know what other words you understand differently to me.

we are using the same words, but i speak with emotion first. phonics go out the window. spell it how it sounds. but then you dont understand cause you are not using your ability to 'empathize'(putting yourself in someone elses shoes) with your neighbor. if you are attempting then try harder. Remember this is an MMO. just cause you are not in the same room as the other person does not mean they are not actually there. Being in an MMO, means that the other people that are playing it have let a little bit of 'society' into their homes. Connecting to other humans is what we do. the object is to not drive them away. 

Everyone is an individual. If everyone is an individual, then everyone deserves to survive, succeed, and be safe while doing so.

it is not acceptable to cause distress to an individual without their consent, where 'distress' is defined as any interruption or interference to an individuals ability to survive, succeed, and be safe while doing so.

the big issue is 'survival' and what it takes for humans to survive; because humans create things for other humans(and themselves) to survive. Survival of the fittest ended several millennia ago....we just never noticed.

also things that some seem to forget that are necessary to survive: Learning(we dont come with instincts, cant stop learning), empathy(the best way to form strong and secure connections to others), and emotional control(cant drive a car and expect to be safe if you lose it)


EDIT: 
also said without malice. not saying you have done anything in particular, just stating facts as i see them.

Edited August 17, 2021 by Tomatoes

[Archaed 2,280]

This thread is now so confusing.