Tab Content
No Recent Activity

5 Visitor Messages

  1. I'm not attempting to psychoanalyze you - my major is in Philosophy, not Psychology.

    However, that sentence was far from analytic.

    And since we're at the stopping from psychoanalyzing each other, stop assuming I have a grudge against you.
  2. View Conversation
    As I said, they should be cautious in "playing God," and should step aside insofar as "playing God" is concerned. I thought that both grammatically and logically this sentence was self-explanatory. You ought not attempt a psychoanalysis of me, either, I am attempting to engage in discourse, not personal attack.

    Regards,

    Hawk
  3. " contend rather that OMAC should be cautious in "playing God," only, not that they should step aside entirely"

    I notice the "not that they should step aside at all" lacking.

    Keep trying to tell me whatever you want, you're not being honest with me. Probably you're not being honest with yourself, though.
  4. View Conversation
    You state again that I claim that OMAC should back down, and that control should be relinquished to the "same old fossils that already have too much of a share in controlling this game." I nowhere in either my post or my response claim anything even remotely similar to this -- I only state that OMAC needs to stop listening to every single thing they hear, and to think more thoroughly before they enact changes. In no circumstances do "old fossils" have any semblance of control, nor did they under Mehul's administration of Utopia. And again I implore you to read my posts more carefully before you spew such nonsensical replies and make claims about my arguments. I invite OMAC to make the game more player friendly in any way they see fit, as this is their right, duty, and indeed their stated goal, or they would not have purchased utopia and swirve. But I do not wish to see them break down game dynamics in the process.

    It is both unfortunate and rare for someone to be so thoroughly biased against an entire class of players simply because of their position on the charts. The extrapolations you are making are illogical, thoughtless, and baseless.

    I invite you to argue against points which I have made; do not, however, invent claims to refute which I have never myself made.

    Regards,

    Hawk
  5. View Conversation
    While I appreciate your attempts at logical discourse, your post has done little but detract from the points I was trying to draw attention to with poorly constructed attacks on my personal character, which have no basis in my own argument.

    Your thesis is that I argue under the false pretense of neutrality, and have a poorly concealed attack on OMAC's actions. You have entirely misunderstood both the content and intent of my letter, simply because of the fact that I am a leader of a top kingdom and have played for a long time. You take the key points of my argument to be that OMAC should step aside entirely and let the community (in this case being all of the players, their interactions, etc) develop; I contend rather that OMAC should be cautious in "playing God," only, not that they should step aside entirely. I explain in the first paragraph of my post the discrepancy between the "utopian community" and the players of utopia, as well.

    You take my address to the "utopian community" (in this instance, the community reading the forums) to be instead an attack on OMAC. This was not; it was, as stated, an address to the community. You call it a "finely concealed attack on OMAC's authority and criteria" in which I make them out to be "newbs that should not mess with us old dogs." You could not be more wholly off-base. It is actually an attempt to legitimize OMAC's recent actions and involvements of the community by explaining to those who have been recent critics of their actions the necessity of this involvement; after all, how is a brand new administration expected to understand social dynamic and community without actually involving those that play the game?

    In your next assertion, you again misunderstand my meaning. You quote me on "precedents" -- these are very fragile things to set, you see. You suggest that when I claim that responding to every single request and complaint (in this comment, I meant every request and complaint made on the forums, through ingame reporting, etc) sets a bad precedent and would lead to negative consequences for everyone, not just for "the utopian community" (again in this case, the people reading the forums, top players, etc), I actually mean that I think OMAC should listen only to me. Then you quote some irrelevant piece of history and state that old players like me can't stand change. Had you actually not misinterpreted everything I said, you would have understood that I am quite open to change, but I think that it needs to be more carefully thought out than it appears to have been thus far. I never once make the assertion that OMAC should listen only to me; the overtones of my post, however, only suggest that OMAC should not listen to every suggestion that happens to get a lot of support.

    Following this, you go on to say some things about cheating and people being afraid of purges; I'm not sure why this is relevant to the post at all. My reference to Henry II was to point out the ineffectiveness of hasty, poorly thought out actions; not, as you seem to think, to indicate that no action should be taken at all.

    You state that the moratorium, in your view, is more related to Catwalk's strong pro-trading arguments than anything else. I would impel you to look at the recent actions in the very game itself for counter-argument to this point, rather than just taking my word for it. Catwalk may argue his head off, but the fact is that so many kingdoms trade, and that indeed a monarch, after himself being deleted, mass-reported the entirety of Utopia. I believe that this realization, accompanied by other decisions about the future of the game, not argument by one person alone, were behind OMAC's decision to issue a moratorium and (to the best of my knowledge) re-evaluate the rules on trading.

    You took issue with my concerns about the implementation of a new system, by claiming that the old system was fine. This would be an excellent argument, except that a new system is being considered for implementation, and my concerns stand, regardless of how good the old system was or was not, and regardless of your views of me as an individual. If people who do not have adequate understanding of the game are going to implement a new system to accomodate trading, which presumably they are, I am concerned about the ways in which this system can be abused for other purposes. I am sorry that you cannot see why the old rules would no longer apply to these circumstances; perhaps you should re-read my post.

    As far as the blog -- not everyone reads it; in fact, most low-level players that you seem to argue so fervently in defense of are not even aware of its existence. My contention is that there should be an ingame announcement every time OMAC makes a change. I do not see why this is a problem. And again you say something about cheating which is irrelevant.

    And for your last argument, intent behind reporting remains important from a macroscopic level (see my argument towards the top of the post) because of the way it will affect the game as a whole. You bring up a courtroom scenario, but the opportunity to argue in defense is not afforded to those who are deleted until after the fact. This ex post facto justice should not be treated as lightly as it has been, which is my main concern here; and which you also seem to ignore.

    I am not refusing to engage in dialogue. I am simply refusing to engage in spam wars. I am not interested in arguing with someone who is looking to slander me simply because I play in the top, or because I have been around utopia for so long. I am not interested in arguing with someone who has only the intent of discrediting me, not of bettering utopia. It is for this reason that I am not interested in posting on the boards anymore than I have.

    Warm regards,

    Hawk
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 5 of 5
About Baobandia

Basic Information

Date of Birth
July 3, 1988 (35)
About Baobandia
Location:
Latin America
Occupation:
Ha, ha, ha.

Contact


This Page
http://forums.utopia-game.com/member.php?1247631-Baobandia&s=1f3477554b17bf0c6ce19dcaec9dbcd0
Instant Messaging

Send an Instant Message to Baobandia Using...

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
155
Posts Per Day
0.02
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
5
Most Recent Message
30-09-2008 06:41
General Information
Last Activity
04-01-2009 21:39
Join Date
07-11-2006
Home Page
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=baobandia