Editorial: My Views on the Event Card Drama

[Sir Valimont]

I am not talking about whether or not it is against the rules to choose one option over another. I am talking about whether it is wrong to do this: "Trying to get others to partake in not doing something when not doing that thing is perfectly within the rules."

You seem to think that just because a person could theoretically choose not to have upped cards that that makes it okay to get everyone to ignore the card. Well it is not even slightly okay.

Why isn't it? Its just discussion of what is acceptable or not acceptable and that discussion is rather acceptable if you ask me. It would be different if there was a rule set in place to prohibit the discussion of event cards but as far as I can tell there is not.

No, it is not "just discussion" of what is acceptable. It is an organized effort to ignore a rule. That is absolutely not a discussion. It is a form of revolt.

What people did that was wrong was not choosing upped cards or choosing non-upped cards. What people did that was wrong was trying to get people to partake in a coordinated revolt against the authority. It absolutely does not matter whether technically the outcome of those actions was against the rules of the event card or not.

This is hilariously out of proportion. From what I can tell based on this thread there was no revolt because there was no rule they were revolting against.  Simply discussion of using an advantage or not isn't revolting unless there is a rule that states you can't discuss it.

Ignoring a rule constitutes a revolt against the authority that put that rule in place. Even if the rule just so happens to be of the sort where doing nothing would have been a possible option by following the rule, it doesn't change the fact that ignoring the rule is a form of revolt and is not acceptable.

[Uppercut]

How were they ignoring a rule? The card says "may", and the happened to not to do it. Trying to get others not to do something they may or may not doesn't seem against the rules. Where is the revolt?

[OldTrees]

P1: There was an optional advantage.
P2: This optional advantage came at a cost.
P3: Some players felt the optional advantage was not worth the cost.
C: Those players made what they felt to be their optimal choice. (To forgo the optional advantage in order to avoid the cost)

The above sounds very reasonable. In fact it would unreasonable for anyone who agreed with those premises to choose to take the optional advantage.

[Sir Valimont]

Trying to get others not to do something they may or may not doesn't seem against the rules. Where is the revolt?

It may not seem against the rules but it is a form of revolt. Which is by definition against the rules of engagement. Not the rules of the event card, but the rules of engagement. Those are the unwritten rules that say you have to conduct yourself in a non-destructive manner. It's pretty obvious that instituting a boycott of one of the rules breaks this agreement.

[Sir Valimont]

P1: There was an optional advantage.
P2: This optional advantage came at a cost.
P3: Some players felt the optional advantage was not worth the cost.
C: Those players made what they felt to be their optimal choice. (To forgo the optional advantage in order to avoid the cost)

The above sounds very reasonable. In fact it would unreasonable for anyone who agreed with those premises to choose to take the optional advantage.

All 100% true and all 100% irrelevant.

We are not talking about an individual or individuals choosing one option or another. We are talking about an organized community revolt.

[Uppercut]

But what boycott? They simply chose not to do something that was their choice not to do, and then (maybe) asked if others would also not do it. How is that a boycott?

[OldTrees]

P1: There was an optional advantage.
P2: This optional advantage came at a cost.
P3: Some players felt the optional advantage was not worth the cost.
C: Those players made what they felt to be their optimal choice. (To forgo the optional advantage in order to avoid the cost)

The above sounds very reasonable. In fact it would unreasonable for anyone who agreed with those premises to choose to take the optional advantage.

All 100% true and all 100% irrelevant.

We are not talking about an individual or individuals choosing one option or another. We are talking about an organized community revolt.

So if each individual choice is reasonable then is not the sum of the choices reasonable?

IE If the X players that agree with P3 forgo the optional advantage and the Y players that disagree with P3 use the advantage. Is that not reasonable?

[Sir Valimont]

So if each individual choice is reasonable then is not the sum of the choices reasonable?

Yes it would be. But that's not what happened. What happened is not that everyone made one choice or another. What happened is that some people tried to get the whole community to refuse the choice itself and play as if the choice never existed.

If the rule had been Age of Entropy for example (I'm on team Entropy), then maybe I would have considered upgrading some Dissipation Shields into Dissipation Fields ... but then realized that Dissipation Shield (which blocks damage using Entropy quanta only) could be better for me. So I would choose not to upgrade my cards. That would be fine. However, in this revolt, players would want me to ignore the rule altogether and not consider the possibility of upgrading my cards. Yes the outcome might be the same but the way of getting there is completely different. And that matters a lot.

This is not about outcomes, it is about intentions. A large part of the community had a completely wrong set of intentions, which was to flaunt authority, taking action into their own hands that they had no right to take.

[Uppercut]

So asking someone if they won't do something that is their choice is wrong because of the intention, not because of the action? If the action caused no damage and broke no rules why would you even question intent? It was fair play, just keep moving from there. I think SG handled it sort of poorly by throwing a tantrum, taking his/her(?) blocks away, and leaving the event. I find that that is infinitely more against the spirit of war than asking if someone would make a choice that was optional in the first place.

[OldTrees]

So if each individual choice is reasonable then is not the sum of the choices reasonable?

Yes it would be. But that's not what happened. What happened is not that everyone made one choice or another. What happened is that some people tried to get the whole community to refuse the choice itself and play as if the choice never existed.

If the rule had been Age of Entropy for example (I'm on team Entropy), then maybe I would have considered upgrading some Dissipation Shields into Dissipation Fields ... but then realized that Dissipation Shield (which blocks damage using Entropy quanta only) could be better for me. So I would choose not to upgrade my cards. That would be fine. However, in this revolt, players would want me to ignore the rule altogether and not consider the possibility of upgrading my cards. Yes the outcome might be the same but the way of getting there is completely different. And that matters a lot.

This is not about outcomes, it is about intentions. A large part of the community had a completely wrong set of intentions, which was to flaunt authority, taking action into their own hands that they had no right to take.

You are discounting one of the costs that some of the players feel exists. Some of them feel that if they won because the use the advantage that they would not feel that it was an earned victory. So they choose to not risk the cost by instead forgoing the advantage.

I have not seen everyones comments on this matter, however the ones I have seen were people alerting others to the choice that they had made so that those others would not be disadvantaged by misconceptions.

[Kuross]

I honestly believe no one who felt this card was OP, and voiced there decision to not use it, did so with the intent of specifically calling out SG. They reacted in the way they felt best to preserve the WAR and make it fun and fair for all. Maybe the actions were a bit extreme, but the end result would likely have been the same. And this is not a slam on SG in anyway shape or form. No one here wants to alienate SG from the tremondous work he's done on behalf of the community. It's an unfortunate unfolding of events that led to a lot of bad feelings.

I also can't understand how this is continuing to go on. there was less drama over the event card than is occuring right now IMO. This is a game. People are supposed to be having fun. Continuing this bickering here is only interfering with that fun. Sorry to be blunt, but seriously, this needs to be dropped. I think it's fair to say this has been a learning process and what has been learned here will be applied to future WAR events. We all just need to move on.

[Sir Valimont]

So asking someone if they won't do something that is their choice is wrong because of the intention, not because of the action? If the action caused no damage and broke no rules why would you even question intent? It was fair play, just keep moving from there. I think SG handled it sort of poorly by throwing a tantrum, taking his/her(?) blocks away, and leaving the event. I find that that is infinitely more against the spirit of war than asking if someone would make a choice that was optional in the first place.

The people who were boycotting were doing so because they felt the event card was unfair. They were protesting a part of the game's rules. Doing that is inflammatory and a direct affront to authority. It is completely irrelevant whether they did it by choosing one option over another or posting nude photos or changing their avatars to have a little red dot in the upper-left corner.