Fortress & Sumo United (FSU)

[Word]

I see it more as someone changing employer. I still don't understand why it would be frowned upon.

Well, it's annoying if it happens right before a tournament and you have a new weak spot now, or after you and the others invested a lot of time to help that player get better. I can understand the anger if some other clan reaps what you think you have sowed. But I agree that it'd be bad if fort becomes even more exclusive, again.

[epsy]

Then that player is not very grateful, loyal, or team-aspiring. It really solves itself.

[Word]

Then that player is not very grateful, loyal, or team-aspiring. It really solves itself.

Only that the whole rest of the team still suffers from the consequences, whereas the new team most likely benefits when it comes to measurable successes instead of moral ones. the rich getting richer and the poor poorer. Changing an employer is OK, but not if you haven't fulfilled the unspoken conditions under which you were employed.

[delinquent]

@word: Forget about it, you have your opinion, any further discussion will only lead to further argument.

@epsy: I'm not sure that one can liken a game clan to employment. I think a better comparison would be the crossing of a politician to an opposing party. Still, it isn't the end of the world, on that point I agree.

@everybody: The continued debate over past occurrences is what I was getting at by "fresh start". the idea of a unified authority cannot function whilst debate over previous misdemeanors is still taking place. Most people have had a say now, so everybody knows everbody elses opinion. That should be enough to understand other peoples standpoints, and work towards a form of compromise between players.

When I get back in I'm going to draft a sample page that would outline what I perceive as an ideal format for the FSU. I welcome constructive criticism, but the continued allegations need to stop.

For example: There has been no apparent sightings of the player known as "Judders" since the last controversy. Therefore, in order that everybody gets a fair chance to prove their worth in an organisation such as this, Liz should no longer have to defend herself, regardless of whether she was or was not the player behind that name. The same goes for all the "gossip" that trickles in on the forum, including the debate as to the founders of TG, the controversy over fortfix, the issues surrounding Concord and the ISL league etcetera.

To put it simply, albeit harshly, everybody shut up. The most important thing that I see here is the development of a unified group of players, unfettered by bell ringing and town crying.

Before anybody jumps down my throat, I'm not trying to exercise a non-existent authority over anyone, I'm simply trying to point out that some, of not all, of these debates are fruitless, as it's unlikely that one argument can change another's opinion in this context.

[sinewav]

Once some FSU team violates so far unwritten rules in a way which affects a non-FSU team, you can predict that the FSU will help itself rather than do what's right; especially if it's used by certain people as a hiding place...

It would cause the FSU to crumble immediately. That's the whole point of (my imagined version of) the FSU, to stop that sort of thing from happening. Like I said before, all the pressure would be on the FSU members to behave. People outside the FSU would experience no change.

You have a lot of weak, conspiracy-laden criticism but no good ideas. Maybe you should post something helpful? Otherwise I don't see why you are involved in a thread that doesn't concern you, seeing that you are against the idea. Maybe you like to cause arguments? Also, I don't see why people would be against the idea. You accept laws and punishment in your homes and countries, but not in a game community?

I don't see anything wrong with coming up with a public Code of Conduct and devising a way to exclude people who don't follow it. We have a framework for this in Ladle already.

[delinquent]

Sine, this is what I was talking about. Whilst you make a very valid point, you can predict that Word is going to reply to it with an argument of his own. Tha in itself is not a bad thing, it promotes debate and whatnot, but your second paragraph is very aggressive. Word is going to respond to that in particular, and it's just going to heat the argument again.

[Venijn]

I think the fact you are being ignored says all it needs to deli. Perhaps if someone else said it, people would take notice.

My personal concerns are over influence. Unless the FSU gave a level playing field (and I mean, level) to all participating clans, it's pointless. There are people and clans who (whether rightly or wrongly) have huge influence, unless that is removed and placed wholly into the Union, then it won't work.

I would also say that it's difficult to say which side I agree on about the former issues. On one hand, it would be a shame that something so wrong wasn't righted, on the other hand, what could be done without the FSU? Also, would the FSU stop people continuing to bring things up retrospectively? I think not.

I'm completely open to this idea, but I'm not confident (at this stage.) I personally believe that if there was to be a Union, it should be for as many game modes as possible, (why only Fort + Sumo?) and without no incentive to join other than a vague alliance (some of the more serious incentives seem to have been written out of discussion) then there's little benefit. This way would also encourage more players from different game modes to actually try them out (rZ are a prime example.)

If the FSU was a body like FIFA for example, and held tournaments across game modes (Tronlympics?) Perhaps that would be incentive enough for people to notice.

As for the new players point, I feel that a whole-tron body wouldn't deter them from staying, if I was getting into a new game, and I was aware there was a body that would give me the opportunity to improve and take part in competitions I couldn't otherwise, I'd definitely do it. (I accept that last point isn't great)

[Monkey]

Jesus Christ, Monkey. First, my slavery example is an illustration that human behavior changes and culture changes. Second, of course there is still slavery in some parts of the world and capitalism itself is wage slavery, but in capitalistic societies the slaves still have rights. My god...

Wrong. The whole point is that human behaviour fundamentally doesn't change but instead they find bullshit ways to kid people that it has. If you think that those poor bastards in India or China have any decent rights worth having then you have indeed fallen for the bullshit of which I speak. Well done.

We already have this. We want something different. That's the point of this thread.

I said that we should have a dedicated subforum for these issues, which we don't already have, although yes, I understand the point of this thread.

[sinewav]

Wrong. The whole point is that human behaviour fundamentally doesn't change but instead they find bullshit ways to kid people that it has. If you think that those poor bastards in India or China have any decent rights worth having then you have indeed fallen for the bullshit of which I speak. Well done.

I can't speak for England, but in the US we don't burn witches, we don't have slaves, women are no longer property, everyone can vote, and we don't endorse genocide anymore. This is a huge change from what was "normal" 200 years ago in my country. Change for the better happens and it can happen here too. I'm sorry you can't see the bright side things. Read Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of our Nature" for inspiration.

Poor behavior stems from ignorance. Education corrects it. Change happens.

[Word]

You have a lot of weak, conspiracy-laden criticism but no good ideas. Maybe you should post something helpful? Otherwise I don't see why you are involved in a thread that doesn't concern you, seeing that you are against the idea. Maybe you like to cause arguments? Also, I don't see why people would be against the idea. You accept laws and punishment in your homes and countries, but not in a game community?

One more time. I'm not completely opposed to something like the FSU, I only criticize the stuff that I think might cause problems later, and TG is part of it - or, before you say that I'm obsessed with TG, it's more the attitude related to it and it's a good example for something the FSU will have to deal with. First you said everyone here would demand punishment but because of that we are unable to get anything done, now you say I was completely against punishment.
But my position is this: find out who it was and leave it to the players to decide how to react. Maybe some will cause drama, but the majority probably won't and just remember it next time that player tries to get in their clan. We don't have to reinvent the wheel.
I guess what I'm asking for is a truth and reconciliation comission? (it was brought up yesterday)
Or a plea bargain (if full amnesty isn't apt)? I'm aware all this is based on the premise that the wrongdoer is known so you can make an informed decision.

I can't see how the proposed ideas for an FSU are going to improve this, even if it has other advantages. Clanhopping or "stealing" of players has always been a problem and as I've tried to point out, an FSU will only have very one-sided benefits in the long run (the influence Venjin hinted at), unless you find out how to ensure this won't happen. You're right that I don't have a holy-grail-answer I could contribute, but at least I thought about it. Teamleaders can still talk to one another, naming these talks "FSU" is OK, but giving them more power than they already have and thereby helping big, rivalling fractions come to life, that is just self-destructive (add to that what epsy said). What kind of rules will the FSU have to prevent the worst-case-scenario I suggested? I'm not here because I love arguments, I'm just talking because I view it as a vital problem for any community with some kind of higher class.

I don't see anything wrong with coming up with a public Code of Conduct and devising a way to exclude people who don't follow it.

The only thing wrong with that is nobody will adhere to a Code of Conduct once he finds himself being at the mercy of its writers' own arbitariness and the writers/associations, secretly or openly, don't follow it themselves - either just because they can, or because they think there's no other choice. This seems inevitable to me - one hand washes the other.

@epsy: I'm not sure that one can liken a game clan to employment

I wanted to edit my previous post a little to add a more drastic example, but then someone else had to use the computer
Anyway, in Arma that player is more like an airbus pilot who suddenly decides to change his job and just uses his parachute. And the better clan's new substitute is the worse clan's MVP.

Clans have often been compared to sports teams so it would only make sense to ask players to play a certain amount of time before they can switch teams again, just like real sports teams do. I don't take the credit for this idea either (and I suppose it's not new). You don't need an entire organization just to put this one rule into practice, do you?


On a more humorous note, the Catholic in me would prefer something like the conclave, where you just have a gremium of old wise tronners that have to meet and lock themselves in the Sistine Server and discuss what to do until the server name changes from grey to white...

[Monkey]

...USA blah blah...

I wish you would take off your rose-tinted glasses for just a second and see just how bad your country and other countries are. Also, the reason why the USA is "better" now than 200 years ago is mostly due to brainwashing and enforcement, which I will explain as follows:

Poor behavior stems from ignorance. Education corrects it. Change happens.

Unfortunately, in most cases, the following quote is more appropriate:

Poor behaviour stems from badness and stupidity. Either brainwashing or enforcement corrects it. Change happens.

Behaviour is a combination of genetics and environment. You can possibly fix environmental issues but you can't fix the genetic ones. Poor behaviour stems from a combination of fundamental badness and fundamental stupidity. It usually only takes a small amount of badness because there is usually so much stupidity. Take Hitler as a prime example. He was the badness and the masses were the stupidity. They followed what he said. He "educated" them and look what happened. You can't educate stupid people, you can only brainwash them, whether it be for the better or the worse, because they can't think for themselves. As for bad people, well you have to enforce their behaviour because they wont be "educated" or brainwashed.

[sinewav]

You're right Monkey. Bad people are forever bad and stupid people will always be stupid. No one will ever change, and thus, culture will never change. I'm sure that's a comforting thought you wake up to every morning. Also, Goodwin's Law.

[Fippmam]

"Fundamental badness." All of a sudden this sounds like the unintelligent, "evil is inherent" notions, of the Dark ages.

People change. If you don't agree with that, then keep your pessimistic ideologies to yourself.

Edit: haha Goodwin's Law.

Can we get back on topic now?

[Phytotron]

And Monkey demonstrates thereby a gross misunderstanding and ignorance of gene/culture co-evolution, human nature, and cognitive, developmental, and neuro-psychology. This ain't philosophy. This is science. And you got it wrong.

Ugh, I'm disgusted with myself for posting here, as well as it implicitly admitting I've even looked at this thread. But, science.

[Monkey]

You're right Monkey. Bad people are forever bad and stupid people will always be stupid. No one will ever change...

You misunderstand what I wrote. I'm not saying that there are people who are just bad and people who are just stupid. I'm saying that there is badness and stupidity throughout at differing levels, they are continuous rather than discrete attributes and they exist due to both environmental and genetic factors. People can only change by alterations to their environmental factors, not their genetic factors.

"Fundamental badness." All of a sudden this sounds like the unintelligent, "evil is inherent" notions, of the Dark ages.

People change. If you don't agree with that, then keep your pessimistic ideologies to yourself.

If you don't even understand that everyone has differing genetic dispositions that alter their behaviours for both the better and the worse then you are even less intelligent than I originally thought you were. First of all, of course people can easily change (or be made to change) their actions but that is due to factors I have discussed. Changing people's thoughts and hence their true selves is much more difficult and can only be done to the extent that environmental factors have caused. Secondly, my idea is not a pessimistic ideology, rather a scientific fact (proved by gene mapping). Do you accept that certain breeds of dog are genetically more prone to aggression or violence than certain others? Did it not also occur to you that the same kind of genetic variations apply to humans? Use your brain man.

Anyway, as far as the FSU goes, it would be dealing with people's actions (enforcement), rather than their thoughts/true selves (brainwashing/educating), so it could serve a purpose.

And Monkey demonstrates thereby a gross misunderstanding and ignorance of gene/culture co-evolution, human nature, and cognitive, developmental, and neuro-psychology. This ain't philosophy. This is science. And you got it wrong.

I am a scientist and this is science. I did not get it wrong.