On Sun, 31 Aug 1997, Andrew Helm wrote:
-+> -+Studying our words can help us understand our underlying intentions
-+> -+and motivations.
-+
-+This is in essence a problem with principle, not terminology. Yet
-+I don't know how to express myself more clearly without essentially
-+requoting my previous message to you. If you cannot go beyond my
-+words to my meaning this discussion will never get anywhere. Try
-+rereading what you just quoted me saying.
"Studying our words can..." and you're going to tell me that you're
not nit-picking over how I phrased something? My intentions were
quite clear in the context my words were used. If you want to pull
something out of context, you're welcome to doing so, but arguing
off of such a weak link is really not suggested. This is a matter
of MEANING (context, principal), not a matter of WORDING (phrase,
words). Seems to me that *you* cannot go beyond *my* words to *my*
meaning.
-+Ideas can be implemented which will make life harder on the players,
-+yet you will find that not every idea which makes life harder on the
-+players will increase their enjoyment of the game. When you simplify
-+your goal to a matter of "pissing-off" the players instead of
-+increasing their enjoyment, you commit a common yet dangerous error
-+of thinking. To judge things by the amount that they frustrate
-+players (always being careful, of course, since we would not want
-+to "piss-off" them to the point that they leave) will prevent you
-+from discriminating between good ideas and bad ideas unlike a person
-+who takes the harder goal of working for the player's enjoyment.
Simplifying my goal to a matter of "pissing-off" players is not what I
said. I used the words, "pissing-off," but my meaning was quite different.
My meaning was quite evident by the context in which the words were used,
and how they were explained. You are, clearly, the one that cannot go beyond
my words to my meaning.
-+When you successfully make a distinction between
-+merely "pissing-off" you players and giving them challenges which
-+increase their enjoyment, you will truly have learned the Art
-+of Administration.
Thank you, Yoda; I think I'll be using the force to take a rock and smash
your skull in now...(yes, a Star Wars reference; had to figure it in
somehow).
Simply put, my meaning was (as I have stated in the two prior messages on
this thread; those being the FIRST message, and the reply to your
"underlying intentions" bullshit) that adding challenges to your MUD
will cause your players to be somewhat disgruntled, whether or not it is
for the good of the mud, or otherwise. This is because players get
quite used to the skill-level at which they are playing, and, even if they
are quite able to play at a more challenging level, they will still get
pissed-off when you make the game more challenging. In essence, you are
pissing-off your players for the good of the mud. But, you cannot make
the game more challenging to the point where players leave, or get really
pissed-off, because then you have imbalanced the mud. Therefore, you
must provide them with challenges, but ones with which they are quite
able to acheive if given the time and resources; so that they know they
are able to overcome the challenge, and thus, continue to play the mud.
This is balance. This is the Art of Administration. This is what I have
been saying all along, if you cannot get past me using the words,
"pissed-off," then this entire thing is, as you said, meaningless.
The thing I can't understand, is why you would use the, "if you cannot
get past my words to my meaning," argument against me, here? You are
the one arguing that my words indicate a meaning, when what I said is
my meaning. You are the one that cannot get past my words to my meaning, and
therefore, your argument only provided me with more ammo to use against
you. You might as well shoot yourself in the head, than become such an
obvious (and idiotic) hypocrite.
This has devolved into something near a flame war, and I realize that the
interest of the people on the mailing list is probably waning; so, unless
this thread can be infused with a little more releavance to the Circle
mailing list, I decree that this should be taken to private e-mail.
--
Daniel Koepke -:- dkoepke@california.com -:- [Shadowlord/Nether]
Think. (Something for Andrew Helm to try once in his life)
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST