Event Cards (removed from the event)

[Jangoo]

Good god ... GUYS, you are not going to reach an agreement on this issue ... ever.

The reason is simply that you are having a debate, and in debate opposing partys will
never give in to each other.

Instead, debate is usually about three ways to make the event fruitful for ones cause:

1.  To gain support through the undecided by presenting a good reasoning. (commonly the main-objective )
2.  To consider the debate as a fruitful act of cross-communication that promotes understanding and thus proper conduct in a diverse society.
3.  To outmaneuver the opposing reasoning thus presenting ones own reasoning as a more attractive choice in direct comparison.
3b.  A more fierce sub-strategy of this is discrediting the opposing reasoning or even the opposing spokesmen as persons, thus effectively getting rid of any viable opposition.


While I would say point 1-2 are acceptable and inevitable in a debate, point 3 may occur but
3b is just the nasty resort of those who can't accept that they are not getting anywhere.
Unless you want to end up being an "asshole", you do not want to go down that road!

I R SAD EVENT CARDS ARE GONE 

One of the more productive posts in this thread.  Lets take the question of whether the community acted right or not and shove it.  What's done is done.  From here, we should find out if and what event cards to use next war.

Exactly!
Daxx already closed the other thread ... I find the EVENT-CARD-THREAD should be about
the event cards for once.

[Sir Valimont]

Valimont, have you actually read MrBlonde's post?  Because it seems like you're objecting to something that never happened.  MrBlonde didn't "boycott authority" -- he said his team (only) was going to NOT USE the effects of the Event card.  That's not boycotting authority any more than it is for someone to tell the government that they're going to not use their income tax return because the tax money came from rich people who were taxed unfairly by the country's progressive taxation system.  It's a statement, but it literally didn't interfere with a damn thing.

You are trying to claim that the boycott of the event card was ok because it didn't take an advantage.

Whether or not any person was giving up an advantage is irrelevant. I never said MrBlonde or anyone else was acting selfishly (actually I never said anything about him whatsoever but he chimed in and asked if I was saying things about him specifically, so I responded), and I never intimated that I thought those who wanted a boycott were acting out of anything besides (misguided) good intentions.

The point, which is quite simple to grasp really, is that boycotting is an unacceptable tactic in this situation. Claiming that MrBlonde did not incite a boycott is wrong. As a team leader who says "my team is not going to use this card," he is inciting a boycott of the card by encouraging other masters to follow suit. That is plain as day. I believe people should read this paragraph several times until they understand it. What MrBlonde posted equals starting a boycott. By definition.

As for your parallel, for it to be appropriate you would have to replace a random person with a governor of a large state who publicly makes a statement that all citizens in his state would be refusing their income tax returns. The reason for his statement would obviously be to protest the system on some level. It also is against about a dozen federal laws and would be met with aggressive hostility, especially if it came without an organized and open exchange of ideas on the subject beforehand.

--

What's bizarre about this situation is that you all don't seem to realize that this is just not the way any system works.

Let's say ScaredGirl made a mistake and her event card was unbalanced. Obviously it was unintentional. But obviously it could happen again ... countless times in fact.

There will undoubtedly be future situations where this community will encounter a surprise that many players don't like for some reason. What is your solution then? You believe that outright striking against authority should somehow be the status quo -- or even on the table for that matter -- for handling situations?

This is not how people handle conflicts. And you can continue to argue until you're blue in the face; you can't justify taking matters into your own hands in this situation because it's not justifiable. I have absolutely no problem with any of you personally and your perplexity at that fact is a bit funny. It's not like I have an axe to grind, and it's also not like I particularly enjoy inciting (idiotic) commentary from some members like that I am somehow the cause of these problems.

MrBlonde -- and many others -- made a mistake of judgment, stemming from a sense of entitlement that was inaccurate. The only reason this discussion is happening is that ScaredGirl did something she did not have to do ... and that is allow the War to continue without event cards. The "normal" outcome would be for her to continue on with those cards in place and be open to discussion for the next time around. If you all refused that arrangement, the appropriate next step would be to cancel the War.

Why do you think ScaredGirl reacted the way she did? Because she's unreasonable? Because she's hot-headed? Because she was insulted that you didn't like her ideas?

ScaredGirl reacted the way she did not because she felt your objection to her ideas was insulting or wrong. She welcomes constructive criticism of her ideas -- and the proof of that is how she incorporates all your ideas so strongly into this community's events. She reacted the way she did because somewhere along the way you all got the misconception that just because she runs things in an open-forum way where she welcomes your ideas, you are now suddenly entitled to unilateral decision-making. Well you are not. The fact that so many of you continue to act entitled is exactly what has made ScaredGirl so upset about this.

[kobisjeruk]

Just because the other thread was closed doesn't mean you should come here to start saying the same things all over again.

Just let it go. It's finished.

agreed^

in my opinion, SG has put down what he wanted to say about the matter and that should be the end of that
it seems to defeat the purpose of removing the problem altogether with all the drama involved when someone else is trying to cause another drama (of epic proportion!) within 2 threads and 10+ pages each later
this should be the place to whoever that wanted to respond to OP, to voice their intention
not adding fuel to the fire ("aww look at what you guys did, boo!")

edit: i see someone removed their post...but not fast enough

[Essence]

As for your parallel, for it to be appropriate you would have to replace a random person with a governor of a large state who publicly makes a statement that all citizens in his state would be refusing their income tax returns. The reason for his statement would obviously be to protest the system on some level. It also is against about a dozen federal laws and would be met with aggressive hostility, especially if it came without an organized and open exchange of ideas on the subject beforehand.

I'd love for you to quote me a federal law that prevents anyone from spending their income tax returns however they'd like (including not spending it at all).  And don't go off about the laws being against the governor telling the people how to spend their money, because MrBlonde, no matter what he said, couldn't have actually done anything to prevent his soldiers from following the rules of the card if they had stood up to him the same way that he stood up to SG. 

What's bizarre about this situation is that you all don't seem to realize that this is just not the way any system works.

No -- what's bizarre about this is that YOU haven't figured out that this is EXACTLY how THIS situation JUST WORKED.  All of your grandstanding is impotent rage, because the thing your objecting to has already happened, and your words to the contrary don't change a damn thing.

You believe that outright striking against authority should somehow be the status quo -- or even on the table for that matter -- for handling situations?

Abso-freaking-lutely.

You can't justify taking matters into your own hands in this situation because it's not justifiable.

Ever read the United States of America's Declaration of Independence?  How about the Constitution?  There are two very well-known and powerful documents that pretty strictly disagree with you. 

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.

Congress shall make no law respecting ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In Elements, "These ends" (from the Declaration) are clear.  We're all here to have FUN.  And when the structure or rules of an event make things NOT FUN, we are all perfectly within our rights to take matters into our own hands, and alter or abolish the event.  Furthermore, the Constitution contradicts you even more directly, making expressly clear that no law can be created that would prevent the players from telling SG and the Warmasters that something sucks and should be changed.

I realize that it's a bit of a stretch to say that these documents have authority here -- they don't -- but the notion that the communities collective actions are "not justifiable" is pretty much shot down when you stop and realize that the USA's Founding Fathers basically completely disagree with you on every conceivable level.  Even if you don't like America, you do have to give us a little credit.

Why do you think ScaredGirl reacted the way she did? Because she's unreasonable? Because she's hot-headed? Because she was insulted that you didn't like her ideas?

Not at all.  SG reacted the way any sane person was -- she was disappointed that all the work she put in wasn't accepted well by the community.  That's perfectly normal and predictable.  In fact, she did an excellent job of handling the situation, all told: she listened to the community, altered the rules, and then got out of the way when she realized that she wasn't emotionally capable of dealing with the situation in a calm and rational manner.  That's EXACTLY what she's supposed to do in this situation, and I've already privately applauded her for it.


And now I've said everything that I have to say, so I'm stepping out.

[Sir Valimont]

I'd love for you to quote me a federal law that prevents anyone from spending their income tax returns however they'd like (including not spending it at all).

The federal laws I was referring to prevent people from inciting public displays of dissent to a federal regulation. Which would come into play if a governor were to make an equivalent statement to my example.

What's bizarre about this situation is that you all don't seem to realize that this is just not the way any system works.

No -- what's bizarre about this is that YOU haven't figured out that this is EXACTLY how THIS situation JUST WORKED.  All of your grandstanding is impotent rage, because the thing your objecting to has already happened, and your words to the contrary don't change a damn thing.

I said this is not the way any system works. And this is not the way this system works either. What you have done is not an example of the system working. It is an example of ScaredGirl deciding to remove the event card because she is nice. Not because you were right to object to it.

You believe that outright striking against authority should somehow be the status quo -- or even on the table for that matter -- for handling situations?

Abso-freaking-lutely.

It says a lot about you as a person if you think that rebelling against authority is an appropriate response any time you disagree with it. Not a lot of complimentary things.

You can't justify taking matters into your own hands in this situation because it's not justifiable.

Ever read the United States of America's Declaration of Independence?  How about the Constitution?  There are two very well-known and powerful documents that pretty strictly disagree with you. 

I wonder how many of the members of the Legislative authority in the US would agree with you that it's appropriate to invoke these documents when you don't like the rules in an online video game.

If you believe your liberties as an American citizen apply in parallel here, you are wrong. This is a free-membership community which works exactly like a dictatorship and the only rights you have are the ones accorded to you. You might play football and believe that the NFL's rules against horse-collar tackles are extremely unfair against the defending team, but the Bill of Rights certainly has nothing to do with your "right" to boycott the rule whatsoever. Same thing with event cards in Elements War.

In Elements, "These ends" (from the Declaration) are clear.  We're all here to have FUN.  And when the structure or rules of an event make things NOT FUN, we are all perfectly within our rights to take matters into our own hands, and alter or abolish the event.

How delusional. I mean seriously -- you think if you're not having fun at a game it becomes your right to "take matters into your own hands?"

Why do you think ScaredGirl reacted the way she did? Because she's unreasonable? Because she's hot-headed? Because she was insulted that you didn't like her ideas?

Not at all.  SG reacted the way any sane person was -- she was disappointed that all the work she put in wasn't accepted well by the community.  That's perfectly normal and predictable.  In fact, she did an excellent job of handling the situation, all told: she listened to the community, altered the rules, and then got out of the way when she realized that she wasn't emotionally capable of dealing with the situation in a calm and rational manner.  That's EXACTLY what she's supposed to do in this situation, and I've already privately applauded her for it.

So you think that ScaredGirl was wrong to put up the event card and that you've been vindicated by her removal of event cards.

Well then she made a mistake in removing them.

She removed the cards because she is nice and she would rather the event continue than degenerate into non-existence or quitting of players. She did not remove them because it was wrong to put them in place. She left the conversation because your attitude is just infuriating and tiresome to deal with. Not because "she wasn't emotionally capable of dealing with the situation in a calm and rational manner." My goodness how utterly ridiculous of you to say that. And rude, and disrespectful.

[QuantumT]

Come on guys, can't all just get along? 

Besides, don't you guys have war preparations you should be making?

[Essence]

[TheCrazyMango]

valimont, what are you trying to achieve by arguing? you call everybody immature, but it you were mature you would have stopped argueing by now. what exactly do you think will happen if you win? What is the point of continually arguing?

[Sir Valimont]

valimont, what are you trying to achieve by arguing? you call everybody immature, but it you were mature you would have stopped argueing by now. what exactly do you think will happen if you win? What is the point of continually arguing?

If you'd like to question my maturity that's just fine.

I will continue to respond to questions or counterpoints that anyone cares to make to my posts.

EDITED to add: QuantumT, that's both a good point and a great smiley. I have been thinking a bit about how to set up a deck for my next opponent -- who is Fire-based.

[TheCrazyMango]

valimont, what are you trying to achieve by arguing? you call everybody immature, but it you were mature you would have stopped argueing by now. what exactly do you think will happen if you win? What is the point of continually arguing?

If you'd like to question my maturity that's just fine.

I will continue to respond to questions or counterpoints that anyone cares to make to my posts.

EDITED to add: QuantumT, that's both a good point and a great smiley. I have been thinking a bit about how to set up a deck for my next opponent -- who is Fire-based.

just like a politician, when somebody asks a good question, you say, "any more questions?"

[Sir Valimont]

just like a politician, when somebody asks a good question, you say, "any more questions?"

I strive to answer any and all questions directly ... actually that was my point.

I felt that your question was rhetorical; in other words you were trying to make a point rather than actually ask for an answer.

To answer your question, I respond to other people's questions and counterpoints because I do believe it's productive to have a conversation about this issue. I think the situation is quite serious and that many of the senior members of this community have a rather incorrect view of it; hopefully through discussion they will be able to improve upon that view.

[QuantumT]

Guys at this point you've beaten the dead horse so much it's just a puddle on the ground. Also:


Alt text: What do you what me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!