Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Patched Wizard

Pages: [1] 2 3
General Discussion / Re: So long and thanks for all the fish.
« on: April 06, 2015, 08:24:30 pm »
Okay so there is a lot to unpack here. After this can I request one of the moderators to close this thread as I feel that it has served it's purpose as my farewell and I don't want this to veer too far off topic.

I also agree with the referee's decision to ask me to leave the spectator position because unless the referee knew my character personally, it would be difficult for them to ascertain my impartiality during the match. I only included that detail in the story for the sake of completing the picture of all the events that lead to my decision. I have no issue with this and that is why I never included it as an example in my main argument.

I was wrong about the referee being a Community Ambassador. I'll own that mistake. However, being wrong about that detail does not invalidate my previous points. There are many other stories that I can pull examples out of that include other and actual Community Ambassadors. And even though this particular individual was not a Community Ambassador, I still hold that the referee's actions are still a valid example of the community's behavioural change towards a more rigid mentality.

My complaint was never against the Sunday Skirmish or its rules. I stated my point clearly here:
However, in these last few months I have felt a change in the winds. Some of this shift has come from senior players of the community and some of this I believe has come from select members of the Community Ambassador program.
My concern is with the growing legalism that I have found at the root of the community and this theme is the focus of my discussion and main determining factor for my departure. I used the Sunday Skirmish as just an example of the symptom that I believe is highlighting a larger sickness at the core of the community.
As for the rules, I have no complaint against rules. I know that rules are necessary for the flow of the game and are a critical guide for dispute resolution. My concerns were about the preference of the 'letter of the law' above the 'spirit of the law' as I made explicit:
You obeyed the 'letter of the law' without considering the 'spirit' in which it was conceived.

It appears Velvet that you and I have a simple disagreement with the semantics of "rules". From what you write you appear to view them as a strict operation to adhere to:
- these coincidental volunteer CAs don't get to ad lib the rules; same as any ref, they have a clearly defined set of rules to follow. This eliminates time wasting in an event that is pretty bad for going over schedule, and ensures all teams get roughly the same treatment.
- SCS is a competitive event though, so you have to appreciate the rules do exist for reasons and we can't just throw in exceptions on a whim. In the end competitive play without rules is just pub lobbies. ^^
This legality and obedience to the 'letter of the law' is what I disagree with on a personal philosophical level. My tutor and mentor when I was learning to be a referee taught me that I was not a referee to enforce rules but that I was there to ensure that every game ran smoothly and that any and all disputes would be resolved as fair and as impartial as possible. He showed me why rules are necessary, but he explained to me that it was better to favour the 'spirit of the law' over the 'letter of the law' because, as I stated before, when you act on the black and white nature of a law you may be "impartial" but you ignore all the nuances of each unique case and in the end may end up being unfair. Impartiality isn't always fair.

We also seem to disagree with the role of a referee. It seems like you ideally want them to have a minimal amount of decisions to make as possible for the sake of maintaining a tight schedule:
- When are rules are enforced inflexibly, this is not because we are "legalistic" or have abandoned principles of fun in our attempt to create a competitive event. It is to save time and prevent confusion for referees and players. (we are often pretty time starved ^^)
But I believe that making hard decisions are one of the responsibilities of being a referee and if a referee is unwilling or incapable of making those tough decisions then that person shouldn't be in that position. In time Velvet, as a person practises and gains experience, they get better at making fairer decisions and they become faster too. At first your referees will make mistakes and they might waste a bit of time, but if you give them the space to start making calls in the 'spirit of the law' and to start using the rational decision making parts of their brains you might find that they become more than just functions in a program. You might even discover that they become pillars of the larger community and the Sunday Skirmish itself. If you want them to learn fast then sit with them through a few matches and explain to them why you make your decisions, why you let certain rules slide and why you don't with others.
And if you're worried about confusion from the players, community, and spectators, then a simple solution would be to have a post game discussion, here or elsewhere, and allow your referees the chance to explain their decisions in front of everyone. This will grow the community's confidence in you and your team and also make your side of the Sunday Skirmish more accessible, transparent, and friendly.

Please do not confuse my disagreement with you as hostility. Do not confuse my dissatisfaction as resentment. I am not writing this to pull you or your work down. Instead i'm writing this to inspire you and your referees to become greater. I want the best for this game of ours and I want the best for the Sunday Skirmish, especially after all the work you've put into this event. These are areas that I believe are holding the Sunday Skirmish back. I see the legality at this stage as a bit cold and indifferent and something that has pushed myself and others away when instead the competitive scene should be pulling us all towards it.

Skrimskraw, this was never a personal attack against you. I feel like I all of your concerns have been addressed above, but if you feel that they are not to your satisfaction you can always message me and we can talk through it together like rational humans.
On a side note I did notice that you made a few assumptions when you constructed your argument. So in the spirit of goodwill here are some links that you might find helpful for next time.

I dont see how you can blame SCS for you leaving, it seem like you are mad at musegames and thought that SCS is part of musegames structure, which it isnt.
Strawman Fallacy:

But whatever... your opinions and criticism seem to be pretty inconsistent and flawed since you mention that our referee were a ca, which he isnt.
Ad Hominem Fallacy:
Fallacy Fallacy:

And I checked up on the stream to see if our referee were being rude.
And this is False Attribution:
as I never claimed or even tried to make a point that the referee was being rude but it seems that you formed that conclusion based off other people's responses.

Before I go a little food for thought. If you still think that the community has not become too legalistic then please ask yourself why was it that every single response to my letter was focused only on the rules and why they must be followed.

I wish all of you the best and hope that next time we fly together there is much laughter and fond memories.

Safe skies,

General Discussion / Re: So long and thanks for all the fish.
« on: March 28, 2015, 07:13:33 pm »
A few people have asked me why I chose to leave and why it happened so suddenly. But before I continue, first, please do not salute me any more as there is something perfect about the number 42. In fact it's the sort of number that I could without any fear introduce to my parents.

Back to the issue, to sum up my reasoning in a single sentence I chose to leave because I wasn't enjoying the direction the community was heading in.

You're welcome to disagree with me, to challenge me, to tell me to shut up; this is after all my personal and limited opinion.

Expanding upon this thought I want to explain that the determining factor for me frequently playing 'Guns of Icarus' was always the community. I have become quite competent at few online multiplayer games throughout my life. For some people being the best is enough to sustain their gaming habits, but for me if I find that the community is lacking I will eventually move on. In this tight group of people I discovered friendship, teamwork, hilarity, fun, competition, challenge, and a place where our similarities overcame our differences. I was there during 'Guns of Icarus'' beta and was brought into the fold by a helpful and patient CA, who tragically to this day I cannot recall his name. But he took the time to teach me and to guide me and prepare me for when I returned to the game last year. He was a great example of the best that this community could be. He made the game accessible and more importantly, he made it fun.

However, in these last few months I have felt a change in the winds. Some of this shift has come from senior players of the community and some of this I believe has come from select members of the Community Ambassador program. There isn't much that can or should done about the veterans. They're players just like me and even if we disagree on points there is nothing to gain from telling them how to play or behave. But I do feel that I can speak about the Community Ambassador program as this is the public and official face of the 'Guns of Icarus' community.

In my eyes the Community Ambassador program has too many members who do not understand the spirit behind the rules of the program and the tournaments that they referee. While there are requirements and assessment by senior Muse staff for membership it is an open secret that getting into the program isn't that difficult to achieve. By allowing the bar to be set so low, I feel that the Community Ambassadors have become diluted by players who shouldn't be representing the game.
As an example, last Sunday, I participated in the Sunday Skirmish. I do not belong to any clan but for my friends and anyone who asks i'll always happily fly under any colour to help out every team who wants or needs help. It is a way that I can give back to the community and assist in giving a team the chance they need to compete against on more equal footing. After we were knocked out of the tournament, another friend contacted me and asked if I could sub for his team in the second round as one of their members couldn't show up. So I joined under a new team and played another game. However it was revealed to me at that point that this action was in violation to the Sunday Skirmish rules. Apparently "Nobody may play for more than one team on the same day". Before the next round I was informed quite curtly from the referee and Community Ambassador that I was to leave immediately. So I left as requested but joined as a spectator so that I could watch all my friends on both sides participate. However, again the same Community Ambassador told me in unconditional terms that "You must leave the game. NOW."

I obeyed and I left.

I have worked as a professional referee for an amateur football league and I have lived under the same roof for a few years with a lawyer. As a referee and a lawyer, one of the frequent topics for our discussions together was the benefits and shortcomings of the 'spirit of the law' and the 'letter of the law'. The 'spirit of the law' can be defined as the intent of the law's creation, what behaviour was the law trying to prevent through its implementation. In the case of the Sunday Skirmish rules, "Nobody may play for more than one team on the same day" was most likely written to prevent teams from attempting to brute force victory by competing multiple times after getting knocked out of a skirmish. The 'letter of the law' is defined as the strict and literal understanding of the rules without regard to the spirit in which they were conceived. I am going to challenge the Community Ambassador referee from the last Sunday Skirmish by stating that there was no harmful consequence from me participating for another team. By forcing me out, you penalised the team I was subbing for by denying them a full roster and you failed to recognise that there was no advantage to be gained over the opposition from me competing. You obeyed the 'letter of the law' without considering the 'spirit' in which it was conceived.

As humans, it's always easier to make decisions based on the 'letter of the law' instead of the 'spirit of the law'. It is easier to make blanket decisions instead of taking the time to approach each case individually and assessing all the facts before making a tough judgement call. How many times have we been frustrated at police who penalise people without applying common sense? On the other side, how many times have we been ecstatic when a police officer shows mercy when common sense overrules the legalistic nature of the law? If we prefer common sense and mercy then we should show it to others and be an example of reason and compassion.

Referees always face grey areas and unclear consequences when making decisions. They will not always make popular or correct calls but if they're are going to be a referee they should always make a decision based on the spirit of the rules instead of the letter. That way the referee can explain their reasoning beyond "That's just what the rules say". Acting in the spirit is fair and that is also what helps build a community. A Community Ambassador has many guides to follow, but if they do not understand why those rules exist they will make decisions that will alienate the community by being uncompromising. If they do not understand the 'spirit of the law' then they should not be a Community Ambassador.

That is what I have personally experienced in the 'Guns of Icarus' community. Some people and Community Ambassadors have forgotten that this is only a game. I came here to play, to have fun, to make friends, to challenge and be challenged by others. In the end this game has no bearing in comparison to life. If the stakes of the tournament were increased with the possibility of financial gain then I could understand a more exact following of the rules to remain above question. But the Sunday Skirmish is a casual event, played by a few people, in a niche game. We gain nothing by alienating new players by pretending we're 'The International'. By acting in such legalistic manners we have missed the spirit of what this game is about.

"The quality of mercy is not strain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes."

Thank you and safe skies,

General Discussion / So long and thanks for all the fish.
« on: March 22, 2015, 06:06:35 pm »
I thought I would make it official here since this forum has been one of my more frequent watering holes.
I might come back after a while, I might not.

Thank you for the games, the laughs, and most of all, the friends.

Thank you and safe skies,

Q&A / Re: Chem Spray vs Extinguisher
« on: March 16, 2015, 06:22:22 pm »
Mallet first slot.

General Discussion / Re: New thing I learned about Guns of Icarus
« on: March 16, 2015, 01:28:06 pm »
I have noticed that there does need to be a distinct difference on the wiki between fact and opinion. And regarding opinions, it is crucial that it is written in a way that it gives out a broad range of advice that encourages experimentation and not "alea iacta est" do's and don'ts.

The beauty about games is that while there are popular tactics and stratagems, there is always the potential for radical shifts in the meta at the cutting edge of experimentation. Our job on the wiki is to provide the keys and show the doors, not to lead people down the exact paths that we ourselves took. Otherwise, we are no better than the Reapers from 'Mass Effect' who guide/force civilisation down limited paths of technology/strategy so that there can be no opposition to their dominion.

General Discussion / Re: New thing I learned about Guns of Icarus
« on: March 15, 2015, 07:20:03 am »
No worries. I've been working my way through the wiki, proof reading every page for small errors and bad grammar. But I thought you might want that one changed as fast as possible, we don't want to give new players the wrong idea. :P

General Discussion / Re: New thing I learned about Guns of Icarus
« on: March 15, 2015, 05:57:35 am »
Just look in the wiki :( : Phoenix Claw

On your wiki you write that "Due to the already very high turning speed on a Mobula and Squid, Phoenix Claw is not necessarily needed on those ships."

I'm guessing you meant the Junker instead of the Mobula in that sentence? The Junker's maximum turn speed of 16.18 deg/s and turn acceleration of 15.24 deg/s² far surpasses the Mobula's maximum turn speed of 14.02 deg/s and turn acceleration of 3.50 deg/s².

The Gallery / Re: GOI Board Game
« on: March 14, 2015, 04:48:53 pm »
Name: Patched Wizard
Favourite Class: Pilot
Favourite Ship: Squid (Burning Autumn) and Goldfish (Damascus Koi)
Favourite part of the game: Stalking through the canyons and ancient wrecks, launching vicious ambushes out from the clouds and crevasses.

Faction: Stateless. I've gone ahead and made the proper arrangements to ensure that i've at least pissed off every major faction possible. Let's just say that it wasn't my brightest moment after a long night of heavy drinking.

Quote: I've been called many things, but I prefer "lunatic".

General Discussion / Re: To GG or not to GG? That is the question.
« on: March 14, 2015, 05:36:59 am »


The Lounge / Re: Fashions of Icarus
« on: March 09, 2015, 04:25:25 am »
DK Mode confirmed.

It is an amazing! coincidence then that having fun can exist completely without any dependency on winning. And remember dear budding armchair philosophers, correlation does not prove causation.

General Discussion / Re: To GG or not to GG? That is the question.
« on: March 08, 2015, 01:08:15 pm »
I used to play football in a semi-professional league since I was a kid and from a young age I was always taught to show good sportsmanship regardless of the results of the game or the opponents that I faced. From that I always try and say "good game" because no matter if I or they got crushed, the simple fact was that we both played against each other and stayed until the end. For me it is honourable to show a margin of respect to my opponent even if neither of us had fun.

Commendations however are a different thing. I see that as more of a personal recognition of a player's actions in the game and for that I do not find responsible to always reward a player. I will even say "good game" in matches against vile players but I will withhold giving them a commendation for their behaviour.

At a young age, without the foundations of sportsmanship, a child can quickly descend into elitism, arrogance, and develop exclusionary and selfish behaviour. At an older age our habits take longer to remould, but given a long enough time scale, even a tiny splinter of pretentiousness can infect our minds and grow to dominate our attitude in all spheres of our lives.

For me, "good game" is more about keeping myself in check and ensuring that I always maintain a good attitude in game then about the game itself.

Steam Workshop / Re: Mask (WIP)
« on: March 07, 2015, 04:56:33 pm »
Salute for your work. I look forward to the fruits of your labor and the next project you put your hands to.

General Discussion / Re: Co-op is freaken amazing
« on: March 07, 2015, 04:55:14 pm »
I will make it my sole goal in life to hunt down every CA until I get my own code.

Sleep with one eye open, Patched is coming to town.

The Gallery / Re: Here there be Monsters.
« on: March 01, 2015, 06:00:03 pm »
See that squid flying dangerously close to the sky leviathan? Yeah, that's me.

Pages: [1] 2 3