On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Fairly ironic given eir recent complaint that players >> blatantly ignore their punishments (not that the appeal in itself would >> be wrong to do--it's eir right to appeal). > > Metagaming vs. roleplaying. I try to play this game as best I can, > and that includes avoiding punishment if I can get away with it-- if I > don't, I'm on an unlevel playing field. Yet I might, without > considering myself hypocritical, complain about players being able to > avoid punishment.
Yah, you've got me pondering the distinction between illegally and legally shirking a punishment, too. I was actually wondering if this particular struggle were interesting enough to see how it can be countered; e.g. I'm assuming you'll wait until the last moment to appeal the current standing judgement and sentence; we could anticipate you and try to get an appeal/sustain in faster, etc., which places the burden on the second judge to overturn a sustained judgement, which we could appeal if e did, etc. OscarMeyr's sentence itself was interesting (for R101vi in particular) in that it both did and didn't punish for P2-99. This could drag on in a lot of ways for a while with both fairly substantial stakes and no certain winner. I'm on the fence its whether its worth it versus just being annoyed but not bothered to take the energy to stop it (is that letting you "win"?) Is it the wrong thing to do in the game but right in the metagame? Or: The only way to win not to play? I dunno. Another interesting culture note: when I joined in 2001 I had been recently playing a lot of Diplomacy, so I started out with a pretty strong roleplaying aspect of "I'm pretending to be a backstabbing, scheming and scamming politician though I'm not one in real life." I was pretty quickly told by many that "you shouldn't do that, it's un- Agoran, you should be whoever you are in real life and not be a jerk avatar and expect us to appreciate you in the metagame, etc." Not to say there's a right or wrong answer to that attitude it was just surprising to me for a "game" at the time and I kinda took it for granted since. One other interesting thing about agora is a standing long-term gentleman's agreement that things be "interesting" but that extends to metagaming "interesting" as well. E.g. it's possible to "win" by constant badgering trivial contests, CFJs, etc. that you call until everyone just gets bored enough to let you "have it." Is that winning? Or winning short-term but losing long-term if you're trying to get more wins out of multiple people? Is this all one giant round of Mediocrity? And isn't life the same way? Whoa. -Goethe
