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.
ajqtrz
Chef - Loquacious One
How easy it is to move away from the subject at hand. In my various presentations about how we should do away with using the star system to rule how others trade, I've implied a moral failure on the part of the community in their willingness to punish those who don't see things as they do. In fact, in the recent round of discussions, I implied pretty strongly, and may have even stated, that those coercing others into engaging in bullying behaviors. Now, in giving that some reflection, I do believe it was both an overstatement of the case, and an implication I should not have made. I've never thought of others as being morally suspect, even if I strongly imply it in my comments. It is this discrepancy -- between sounding condemning and actually condemning, which makes me pause.
The use of threat of coercion to get a player to do what you want IS a bullying act. But it does not mean the one doing it is a bully. We can do things the ramifications of which we are not aware. Making a copy of a copyrighted book, for instance, is a violation of copyright laws and is, under the law, stealing. But some don't know that and do so anyway. Driving even a mile over the speed limit is speeding -- but again, some sense it other ways. And when it comes to using a groups social pressure to get a member to conform to the rules of the group, it may be a bullying act, but that doesn't mean the one doing it is a bully. OR that the act is actually bullying.
I have reflected on what was said out "informing" a person about the consequences of his/her choice. That putting up certain trades consistently might get you in trouble, is certainly true. Thus, was it, or is it a bullying act to reveal that to a player? No. Not at all. I have, mistakenly, implied that it was, I think. I regret that.
Third, the problem, if there is one, is that any rule put forward by any group, if not done for the better of the group, but for the better of a person or persons in the group, is bullying. If it doesn't benefit the group as a whole those enforcing it to benefit themselves, are acting the role of a bully. I do believe that most of the people who stand behind the traditional rules of trading, are doing so for what they believe to be the better of the group and are not bullies. If I've implied otherwise, anywhere, and I probably have, I'm sorry I did so.
Finally, the real question is: which is better for the group? Restricted trading, or open trading. Who benefits from the rules as they somewhat stand, and who looses -- or does everyone gain? Who would benefit from open trading, and who looses? -- or does everyone gain? That's the real discussion and I'm sorry if I let my comments stray into what amount to something not as clear.
AJ
The use of threat of coercion to get a player to do what you want IS a bullying act. But it does not mean the one doing it is a bully. We can do things the ramifications of which we are not aware. Making a copy of a copyrighted book, for instance, is a violation of copyright laws and is, under the law, stealing. But some don't know that and do so anyway. Driving even a mile over the speed limit is speeding -- but again, some sense it other ways. And when it comes to using a groups social pressure to get a member to conform to the rules of the group, it may be a bullying act, but that doesn't mean the one doing it is a bully. OR that the act is actually bullying.
I have reflected on what was said out "informing" a person about the consequences of his/her choice. That putting up certain trades consistently might get you in trouble, is certainly true. Thus, was it, or is it a bullying act to reveal that to a player? No. Not at all. I have, mistakenly, implied that it was, I think. I regret that.
Third, the problem, if there is one, is that any rule put forward by any group, if not done for the better of the group, but for the better of a person or persons in the group, is bullying. If it doesn't benefit the group as a whole those enforcing it to benefit themselves, are acting the role of a bully. I do believe that most of the people who stand behind the traditional rules of trading, are doing so for what they believe to be the better of the group and are not bullies. If I've implied otherwise, anywhere, and I probably have, I'm sorry I did so.
Finally, the real question is: which is better for the group? Restricted trading, or open trading. Who benefits from the rules as they somewhat stand, and who looses -- or does everyone gain? Who would benefit from open trading, and who looses? -- or does everyone gain? That's the real discussion and I'm sorry if I let my comments stray into what amount to something not as clear.
AJ
Pity is what I feel for them.
