FOR YOUR VIEWING PLEASURE

Hi back, Barry,

While I wasn't looking for an appology, and usually don't accept them (since it does nothing to "undo" what's already been done, and if it wasn't meant originally, why'd you say it?), it's appropriate of you to take this particular trek off the general discussion forum of MUD-Dev.

That being said, I find it more than a bit ironic that you've posted the observation "How will someone know he's being an asshole, if no one tells him he's being an asshole?" on your blog, as well as a venting screed about me. To me, the obvious take-away from the whole MUD-DEV affair is that you were, in fact, the one who started being an asshole, and I (as well >as a few others) told you so.

Excellent, man. I can't tell you how pleased I am that you are trying to be "part of the solution." So many people let what they see as "unacceptable behavior" and simply watch it happen, instead of standing up to the perpetrator and saying something to them. I'm willing to do it, and I appreciate it when someone else reminds me of the social debt I owe to others.

My take on the transaction is this: When I offered the my first and second replies to your post, they were considered, calm, and rational... and not at all personal. Please re-read them if you're unsure. In your reply to the second one I offered, on the other hand, you decided to get extremely personal, condescending and insultingly portrayed me as unable to comprehend arguments and see distinctions.

This part is a real shame. I really and honestly and unabashedly didn't think that I was communicating my thoughts to you in a way that was meaningful. The more I tried to clarify my position, the more out of context you seemed to take me.

While I could have said, "You sucking twit, you can't understand the most basic concepts", I find that rude and intrinsicly in error. I was the communicator. The oneous is on me to communicate in a way that is clear and leaves no room for misunderstanding. I thought I was admitting my own failings, but again, obviously I wasn't communicating well again since you really took me at 180 degrees of my intended meaning.

You portrayed players as hopeless addicts who'll put up with anything to get their "fix", and GMs/Admins as lacking the courage to discuss "judgement".

Here's yet another misunderstanding. I thought it was clear that in the context of our previous discussion "players" meant "my kind of player", or "my personality type" and that I was putting myself into the same category. I think that if I include myself in the same group I'm describing, I'm well within my rights to deride myself and my bretheren, just a little bit. The "fix" I was talking about was a "social need for human interaction". I also thought that was clear from my original posts and the way the conversation was moving. Apparently, it was not.

In short, you were being an asshole. I responded based on being thoroughly insulted... and should have known better than to do so.

What I don't understand is how you felt directly insulted. To this point (in this particular e-mail and to the point of the discussion we've covered) I don't think I applied any of my characterizations directly to you. I'm usually very clear when I'm trying to insult someone. My blog post is a great example of when I'm deliberately trying to insult someone. Compared to that, I might have called your logic into question, but if you can't stand to that kind of criticism on an e-mail forum like this, you should find another forum. Maybe one that focuses on kitty's and care-bears.

I'll offer some unsolicited advice. Feel free to take it or leave it, but please know that it's offered in the spirit of trying to improve communications. I've had similar advice offered to me when I was on that end of the incident, and I think it has helped over the years.

Awesome, I'm all ears. Maybe afterward, I can offer some to you in return.

In my experience, there are certain lines that simply shouldn't get crossed

I totally agree.

... and you crossed a bunch of them. IMO, you don't insult someone by characterizing their argument as a "vacuum of developmental pontification" unless you're asking for a fight.

Right! I love being controversial. You'll notice that one e-mail thread had an "ass-load" of e-mails and sub-threads spawned from it. I'm thrilled that I inspired so much conversation about a topic that TO THAT POINT had consisted of "Great! That's just neat!" I was beginning to feel like the whole MUD-Dev group were a bunch of yammering syncophants.

More to this specific statement, though. I read the blogs and webpages of many of the MUD contributors on a daily basis. I've purposefully immersed myself in this culture on a quest for the smartest/best/most efficient/most contextual/most player-friendly/best balanced ideas I could find in regards to running an online community.

When I read many of the arguements (logical thought processes) put forth by contributors who are paid by a game company for what they think and offer to the industry, I'm annoyed by the number who preach one set of standards in their "papers" they publish, but then argue from the perspective that 1 particular system only affects itself. I've seen some of these guys say that a particular idea will "drive all the players away" but completely ignore the rest of what someone has to say.

Many of the MUD contributors pontificate ad naseum about their ideas and how players interact with each other, etc, etc. However, some refuse to acknowledge that systems affect each other. It's almost like they are incappable of conceptualizing the fact that mulitple factors can contribute to how players will react to each other and to various game systems. Once some of these guys have formed a notion about how a particular game mechanic didn't work on one particular server, they simply can't see beyond that point.

I am not a detail-oriented kind of guy. That is one of my biggest failings. I have a tendancy to get distracted looking at the whole big, beautiful picture and never notice that I bought a fake because the brush strokes are all wrong and Da Vinci's name is mispelled. That's why I like to throw my ideas at this group. Let some smart guys who are very detail oriented pick my ideas apart and expose the weak points and "holes" in my arguements.

On the other hand, I'm a very big-picture kind of person. I have an absolute knack for immediately seeing the results of changes in one system and how they'll affect other systems down stream. It's really what makes me so good at my job. People who lack my ability to see the broader picture tend to argue as if their concept existed inside of a vacuum, where it is unaffected by anything else and where it does not affect other things beyond it's immediate vicinity.

THAT's where my snide remark came from. If I was off base, well....naw, I was right on the mark.

Likewise, I don't know that it's ever justifiable to TELL other people that THEY don't see a distinction. THEY are the only ones qualified to say whether they do or not, because they're the only ones in their head. It's important to allow for the possibility that you're misunderstanding someone else's argument or reasoning. Telling someone else that they have "forgotten what it's like" is also likely to be a powder keg for the same reason... you're not inside their head, so you really have no way of knowing. Better to ASK rather than TELL.

Barry, one of the great things about the human brain is its ability to reason out a logical conclusion. I can read your statements, and begin to piece together a picture of what's going on behind what you write in response to my ideas and words. Within that context, I can immedately tell that you are not comprehending that I see two seperate issues that you are not seeing, either because you can't, or because you don't want to. I don't have to ask you whether you see it or not, I can tell. I'm not stupid.

A simple qualifier like "It seems to me that you don't..." would have gone a long way towards defusing those observations. It allows for the possibility that you're simply misunderstanding them, and you make it clear that you're offering a personal impression rather than talking about indisputable facts.

My way also allows for the possibility that you are misunderstanding my meaning, which, in fact, is what I said. Maybe I'm not understanding you.

My way is also far more efficient. It avoids all the pussy-footing and bullshit.

In general, it's considered "asking for a fight" if you portray someone else as too stupid to understand what you're saying. In the vast majority of cases, a lack of understanding should be taken as evidence of a poorly phrased argument rather than stupidity on the part of the other person.

RIGHT! I totally agree, dude. I kept telling you that I wasn't making myself clear, and that I didn't know how to make myself clear to you. I thought it was BRUTALLY clear that I WAS THE ONE WITH THE PROBLEM.

You kept taking me out of context. Again, my context was probably poor, so maybe it's not your fault. That doesn't make you less of a jackass for the way you responded. You got really nasty, and cherry-picked comments of mine in an attempt to make me look bad in front of the group. Not only were you taking me out of context innocently, but you began to do it on purpose, which makes you a shit-eating cock-sucker:-)

That's what makes the phrase "I don't know how to approach this in a way that you'll understand" into a complete grenade when thrown into a conversation, IMO. It tends to "dumbed down" in order to understand.

No, it portrays me as the one who can't express himself in a meaningful manner. I totally took the responsibility for my miscommunication.

A relatively harmless alternative might be "I'm having trouble coming up with an approach that makes the distinction clear."

Yeah, those are a lot of extra words that are meant to make you feel fuzzy on top of admitting that I'm not doing a good job on my end of the conversation. Fuck that.

Likewise, throwing out terms like "fascist"

Fascist is what it is. It is a term that is well defined. I personally think that certain behaviors on MMORPGs can ONLY be dealt with through the direct application of FASCISM. Does that start a fight?

Barry, you have to read the words AROUND the word that makes you feel uncomfortable if you're going to keep up with me.

and portraying people as afraid to use the term "judgement" are definite fight-starters.

HEY! I was talking about the game companies when I said that. Go check. The game companies, like many in our modern society, refuse to "judge others" like it's some kind of anti-social behavior. It's exactly the opposite. Only when we walk around judging the behaviors of others in society can we maintain a level of civility.

I can't think of how to convey the proper contexts in a less inflammatory way, because I'm unsure of what your intent was. It's hard for me to see that as anything other than simply being provocative... which has a natural tendency to provoke people. =/

Great, because that's how it was intended. When people refuse to judge others on their bad behavior, they are helping to make the bad behavior more acceptable in the society. People like me have the testicular fortitude to stand up and call them on it. It wasn't meant to come off in a "nice" way.

In general, I try to approach public conversations as an opportunity to
learn. Assume that the person you're talking with knows something that
could benefit you if you understand it.

I do, that's why I joined the MUD-Dev forum to begin with. That's why so many of their members make it into my "Smart Guys" column on the blog, even some of the guys with whom I VEHEMENTLY disagree. I still learn a lot from those guys.

Assume they have a valid differenceof opinion, rather than assuming they are just "wrong" right out of the gate.

Your logic is flawed on both points. First, I don't assume that people are wrong out of the gate. I always listen even when I don't agree. You never know when something will change your mind about a situation.

Second, you shouldn't "assume they have a valid difference of opinion". Validity is EARNED, not ASSUMED. It's just like respect. Your validity will be judged as we move through the arguement. By your line of logic, I should start out assuming that pedophiles have valid differences of opinion on why children and babies should have sex with them.

As to your blog-post screed, I think you have some definite erroneous impressions of me. Politically, I'm a significant distance from "liberal"... if I land anywhere, it's within a triangle bounded by modern conservatism, Jeffersonian and Objectivist.

How nice for you. Now go back and study the subject matter again, because it hasn't done much to shape your thought processes.

I found David Reim's predictions for E3 compelling not because I agree with him, but instead because he has an obvious gift for painting word-pictures succinctly. I can only dream of being able to convey a spectrum of ideas that well in only 130 words or so. It's his writing gift I envy, not his politics.

But his politics were right out there in the open in the rant he posted. Why, if you don't agree with him, didn't you make that clear? Why didn't you simply clarify that you love the way he writes, but disagree with his message?

Because it doesn't matter. He's as nasty as you were to me, that's why you love him. He'll shit all over other people in the worst way, and you'll both sit back and call it "enlightened".

Fuck you, Barry.

As to the "socialist" nature of the proposed ruleset, I'm simply exploring the boundaries of what we can do to make eBaying a non-starter and still have a playable game. It's not designed or intended to be a commentary on politics. I would never espouse anything remotely like that for the real world... but many people turn to virtual worlds precisely to ESCAPE the real world. In games, we can explore themes that can be entertaining without having to make them a mirror-image of what we'd like to see in the real world. I can enjoy FPS games without ever wanting people to go out and do that in real life, after all.

Fair enough. After reading your buddy's post, and then looking at that system and the reasoning behind the player interactions, I made a poor assumption. I'll take that part back.

By my own poor logic, other people could assume that I'm an Imperialist, which I'm not.

Our current design is about trying to prevent "counterfeit achievement" on at least some servers... that's definitely NOT a liberal idea. We want to celebrate and reward in-game individual (and group) achievement and success, not water it down into "everyone's a winner". We've had to shuffle the landscape around a bit to make it eBay-resistant, but it's still a great place to play for achievers, explorers and those who are attracted to MMOs for the social aspects as well. It's certainly less "mercenary", but I don't think every fun game has to be about selling stuff to other players. There are plenty of games I can play if I want that.

I think my real problem with this kind of system, is that it restricts the freedom of the players to trade in any way they like. You might say that I'm contradicting myself, but I'm not. I want a fair trade. If that means that some people will take advantage of the system and cheat, then that's what it means. It also means that the designers need to motivate players not to cheat, and that administrators have to castrate players when they catch them cheating.

In the real world, I'm all about extracting dollars from happy customers. I'm just trying to create environments that cater to as many different styles of play as I can, and thereby hopefully attract and keep the maximum number of players. I try to do that by listening to customers and trying to meet their desires where I can. It's all about customer satisfaction for me.

"I'm just trying to create environments that cater to as many different styles of play as I can, and thereby hopefully attract and keep the maximum number of players."

That's exactly what I'm trying to do, too. Only, I'm not getting paid for it, which really doesn't mean anything, other than I am the master of what I do, and I'm not bound to concerns of "this might make 20% of my base quit" (which is great if it means I lose a bunch of "jerk-players" and pick up a 30% increase in "casual gamers".)


Barry, I'll put this up and those who actually bother to read my blog can look at my first post and this one and judge for themselves. You've had your say on the matter and I've responded.

I don't hope you get hit by a bus, but that could always change tomorrow.

Thanks,

Jaycen