Solid AJ move: a not-so-subtle association of his opponents with slave owners and nazis? Nice manipulation.
Sadly, it's difficult to put forth examples of where the group gets it wrong which are not extreme. It seems in most situations if you use what you consider a reasonable example, somebody takes issue with it and you get side tracked onto the question of if the society got it wrong or not. I picked these two exactly because I doubt very much anybody would disagree that the social norms in those societies didn't get it wrong. As for the association of what goes on here with nazi and slave owners, I certainly didn't mean it that way. Necessity sometimes traps you into a no win situation.
You conveniently leave out that the group can also get things right: We shun people because of theft, assault, pedophilia, and murder-- should we stop bullying those people too?
(see how I made an AJ argument? Now your side is that of thieving murderous pedos)
Actually, you almost got it right. But we don't bully those people, do we? We punish them in a court of law. In other words, we have legal and formal authorities for dealing with those types of people. We don't elect ourselves to do it and then claim we represent everybody. The authority to punish for the informal norms of the group are granted by the group. My argument is that we shouldn't punish those who promote and engage in open trading and that the norms are not cooperative at all, but just the opposite.
More AJ hypocrisy (shocker) Telling others what they can and can't do while explaining that we shouldn't tell others what to do.
I'm not sure expressing what I would like you to do is the same as expressing what I would like you to do and then implying repercussions for you not doing it. The first is giving you a choice. The second adds punishment if you decide to do other than I say. Unless I'm the legal authority in the matter, the second is bullying.
More to the point, perhaps, is the simple question of identifying you interlocutor as a hypocrite. Let's ask the question and see if that makes any logical sense. Suppose I preach you shouldn't steal. If I did and then went and stole, you'd say I was a hypocrite, right? Does that mean you should steal? My failure has no bearing on the fact that stealing is wrong. How would my being a hypocrite make my argument against stealing any less sound (or more)? Calling somebody a name by claiming their behavior is in that category, is an attack on the person...it's called an ad hominem fallacy. You just committed it.
There is nothing inherently wrong with "conforming" or advising others of the benefits.
Context matters, and in this case the majority seems to favor certain trading practices which ultimately benefit everyone by creating a cooperative environment. This effect is more easily achieved by having more players participate in desirable trading practices, so advertising and advising such actions is both self-serving and beneficial to the community as a whole.
As for your baseless assumption that we all speak for relatively few members(and the implication that you speak for more?), that doesn't seem to hold up when you look at the rather overwhelming evidence from the FS overviews on each server.
When you say "the majority seems to favor certain trading practices" you are right. That is an ad populum fallacy. Just because they are the majority (and maybe they are), doesn't mean they are right. My argument is that the majority (if they are the majority) had gotten it wrong. Thus, we need to deal with the effect the norms and ask if they really are providing cooperation or if they aren't more coercive.
What is cooperation? You come to the trade board and see some trades you wish to take. You take them. That is cooperation. I go to the trade boards and post trades I want to make. That, too, is cooperation. No one is making us do what we do, we do it to interact positively with other players. If a transaction is taken, the taker is cooperating. If it's offered, it's offered expecting somebody will cooperate and take it.
Now there are those who will post to make a profit. Is that any worse than offering a profit with a 3 star trade? Brin Darby had a point when he said the "imbalance" is there no matter who offers the trade. Yes, the one posting the 3 star trade is aware of the "imbalance" (or should be) and is willing to take the "unfair" part of it. On the other hand, the one offering the zero star trade is also aware of the "imbalance." But since nobody is forced to take that trade, what does it matter? If they take the trade on purpose they are saying the "imbalance" is acceptable. If they take it on accident, they need to learn better game skills, that is all.
Of course there are those who feel that "profit" is a dirty word. Unfortunately for them, the game allows profit so it's doubtful the devs saw profit as a negative -- they run a "for-profit" company so it would be really strange if they had an negative feeling about profit.
So what is the problem? Transactions are cooperative since nobody is being forced. I look at trades and sometimes, even 3 star ones get rejected. Why? Because I don't need the goods...they aren't as valuable to me at that moment as the goods I would have to give for them.
And you are right. Conformity or not, should not be the issue. But using social pressure by threatening expulsion from the fs (or encouraging others to block someone) is forcing social conformity -- and that is not cooperation at all.
In the end it's about explaining the benefits of the norms and why those benefits out weigh the costs of those norms. If you don't don't resort to ad populum and ad hominem fallacies we'll get a lot farther, don't you think?
Back to the
shunned ignore list with you, and yes, this is an advertisement that others should do the same.
It's really too bad that's your first choice when you disagree with me. You don't like my rhetoric, and that's okay, Obviously, I don't give up easily, and I'm sure that gets a lot of people mad. Usually, in groups, when the high status persons in the group speak everybody else is expected to follow. You have spoken, but I haven't followed. That's a bit if a negative for me. But it is also a fallacy to say that just because you, as a high status member, are right because yous say you are right. In any case, I don't let people use ad populum and ad hominem fallacies as arguments.
Even if, as has been claimed, you are just telling the one breaking the rules what is going to happen out of kindness, If push and support the very rules they are breaking, you can't pretend that you aren't part of the coercion. You are the mouthpiece and no matter how gently or kindly you tell the other player not to break the norms, you are using social pressure to enforce them.
Finally, if there is anyone who really wants to take on explaining how forcing people to act a certain way is "cooperation," or contributes to a "more cooperative" environment, I'd like to hear it.
@Sir Squirrel I was concerned that you were forced to pay a premium for some goods. How did the person force you? Did they come to your house and hold a gun to your head? I'm being knowingly facetious. You took the trades because you valued the goods received high enough that you were willing to give the goods for them. It was your choice. You may have disliked that you were paying more than you thought you should, but that's the problem. You weren't paying more than the goods were worth in your situation, because you paid for them. Your situation changed their value in your eyes enough to warrant the trade. That's all I'm asking, in the long run, is for people to be able to value their own goods however they wish without the social constraints of the star system and the star policing policies.
Thanks for listening.
AJ
Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
Diamonds
