Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
It wasn't always this way, but it's been this way for a long, long time.
Howcome someone beating someone else severely with the PUNISH verb can't be seen by anyone other than the person using it and their target?
~Methais
It's certainly been that way for as long as I can remember, and it wouldn't be remotely appropriate otherwise in my opinion. The action generated by the verb, if it were actually happening, would logically have to involve the combat system. I would say it's invisible because the verb is just a silent joke between two players, not a real IC action.
That's how I see it, anyway. You shouldn't be able to give someone a beating in GS without at least rolling a d100 first.
Dave, Brandain's Bard
That's how I see it, anyway. You shouldn't be able to give someone a beating in GS without at least rolling a d100 first.
Dave, Brandain's Bard
I disagree.
But then, I've always said roleplay requires you to respond to the actions of others, and not just what they said, or how you think you should act.
It's a pity that this -- an edgy and penultimate engagement method of interaction before the war starts -- is being confused as an 'inconvenience'.
Doug
But then, I've always said roleplay requires you to respond to the actions of others, and not just what they said, or how you think you should act.
It's a pity that this -- an edgy and penultimate engagement method of interaction before the war starts -- is being confused as an 'inconvenience'.
Doug
I'm confused by your post, Doug. Are you saying you see the "punish" verb as "an edgy and penultimate engagement method of interaction before the war starts?" That seems like quite a stretch, to me. And I didn't notice anybody confusing it as an "inconvenience". We simply don't recognize it as a "real" verb, for the reasons Dave mentioned.
If you want to "beat someone severely" (legitimately) I'm afraid you're going to have to engage them in combat. I don't think most of the skilled and deadly adventurers hanging around Elanthia would simply stand there and allow someone to "beat them severely" without a fight (or consent). It's always been a tongue-in-cheek inside joke. That's why there's no third party messaging.
There actually may be one legitimate use for the verb, however. I'm not speaking from experience, but it may be a "spicy" verb choice for certain couples behind closed doors. Not my thing, but hey, to each their own. ;) That alone may be why the verb has survived over the years. Given its private nature, it certainly seems suited for that, eh, application.
In any event, I don't see how differing views regarding the nature of this verb warrant a judgment on good or bad roleplaying. There may be times when this verb is appropriate. But when it's not, I think it may be safely ignored without fear of being labelled a "bad roleplayer".
~ Heathyr and friends
If you want to "beat someone severely" (legitimately) I'm afraid you're going to have to engage them in combat. I don't think most of the skilled and deadly adventurers hanging around Elanthia would simply stand there and allow someone to "beat them severely" without a fight (or consent). It's always been a tongue-in-cheek inside joke. That's why there's no third party messaging.
There actually may be one legitimate use for the verb, however. I'm not speaking from experience, but it may be a "spicy" verb choice for certain couples behind closed doors. Not my thing, but hey, to each their own. ;) That alone may be why the verb has survived over the years. Given its private nature, it certainly seems suited for that, eh, application.
In any event, I don't see how differing views regarding the nature of this verb warrant a judgment on good or bad roleplaying. There may be times when this verb is appropriate. But when it's not, I think it may be safely ignored without fear of being labelled a "bad roleplayer".
~ Heathyr and friends
Heathyr - 'not recognizing it as a "real" verb', and suggesting it has no place outside combat, while at the same time taking up a stance that it does nothing for you -- I have perhaps mis-characterized as an inconvenience. Perhaps not, though.
The original post asked a simple question -- why isn't it visible to others. I think it's a great question, and would move to have it 'shown' (perhaps 'Heathyr starts an altercation with the Elf about some obscure point.') How it progresses from there is an opportunity.
Perhaps it should be consolidated into tone. Perhaps it should have a matrix of possible visible actions based off of demeanor and status ('Heather grabs the Elf in a loose headlock and pulls him around a bit while emphasizing her vehement disagreement about the topic at hand.')
Going from 'why doesn't' to 'needs to engage the combat system' isn't the leap I'm interested in taking. You and Dave agree apparently, yet I have a different perspective. Don't give up any opportunity to roleplay. Not a single one.
Consider the power of a visible 'punish', annotations via MYCHAR, the strident tones we have access to, and the ACT capabilities we have, as a simple example. It doesn't need combat, nor does every altercation end in combat.
Doug
The original post asked a simple question -- why isn't it visible to others. I think it's a great question, and would move to have it 'shown' (perhaps 'Heathyr starts an altercation with the Elf about some obscure point.') How it progresses from there is an opportunity.
Perhaps it should be consolidated into tone. Perhaps it should have a matrix of possible visible actions based off of demeanor and status ('Heather grabs the Elf in a loose headlock and pulls him around a bit while emphasizing her vehement disagreement about the topic at hand.')
Going from 'why doesn't' to 'needs to engage the combat system' isn't the leap I'm interested in taking. You and Dave agree apparently, yet I have a different perspective. Don't give up any opportunity to roleplay. Not a single one.
Consider the power of a visible 'punish', annotations via MYCHAR, the strident tones we have access to, and the ACT capabilities we have, as a simple example. It doesn't need combat, nor does every altercation end in combat.
Doug
I get where you're coming from, Dave, but there's no way to justify being able to "beat someone severely" unless A) the other party consents or B) there's a physical melee. I mean, really, think it through. The nature of the action entails combat. It's not good roleplaying, it's just silly.
And please stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say "it has no place outside combat"...in fact I believe I illustrated a specific situation outside of combat where it does, indeed, have a place. I also never characterized it as an "inconvenience". That doesn't even make sense to me. I actually never made any judgment on whether it's "good" or "bad" (or "inconvenient") at all. It is what it is.
If "punish" were changed to become visible, I think it would have to be changed quite a bit. In fact, I can't see it happening without introducing a new system to handle it. A punch or slap is one thing. You may be able to get away with a single blow before the other person reacts. But "beating someone severely" isn't something that can be done unless they consent or have a chance to stop it. As it stands, a frail 1st level wizard could "punish" a capped warrior. Does that really make any kind of RP sense to you?
I don't see how using "punish" in its current form is such a wonderful "opportunity to roleplay", outside of a few limited, consensual situations.
~ Heathyr and friends
And please stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say "it has no place outside combat"...in fact I believe I illustrated a specific situation outside of combat where it does, indeed, have a place. I also never characterized it as an "inconvenience". That doesn't even make sense to me. I actually never made any judgment on whether it's "good" or "bad" (or "inconvenient") at all. It is what it is.
If "punish" were changed to become visible, I think it would have to be changed quite a bit. In fact, I can't see it happening without introducing a new system to handle it. A punch or slap is one thing. You may be able to get away with a single blow before the other person reacts. But "beating someone severely" isn't something that can be done unless they consent or have a chance to stop it. As it stands, a frail 1st level wizard could "punish" a capped warrior. Does that really make any kind of RP sense to you?
I don't see how using "punish" in its current form is such a wonderful "opportunity to roleplay", outside of a few limited, consensual situations.
~ Heathyr and friends
>>And please stop putting words in my mouth.
You use this defense quite a bit to try to bully others into not pressing you on your points, Heathyr. I see it frequently. It hasn't worked for you. For example:
>>or B) there's a physical melee. I mean, really, think it through. The nature of the action entails combat. It's not good roleplaying, it's just silly.
And interestingly enough, those are the words you posted just before claiming someone (probably me, more than Dave -- another mistake, I'm sure) is potentially misstating your perspective in rebuttal. Admittedly, there's some interpretation going on. But, it's not a stretch. Correct me, if you feel you must. But stop playing the victim card.
As to needing to change, I would agree. I'm pretty sure that's clear.
Doug
You use this defense quite a bit to try to bully others into not pressing you on your points, Heathyr. I see it frequently. It hasn't worked for you. For example:
>>or B) there's a physical melee. I mean, really, think it through. The nature of the action entails combat. It's not good roleplaying, it's just silly.
And interestingly enough, those are the words you posted just before claiming someone (probably me, more than Dave -- another mistake, I'm sure) is potentially misstating your perspective in rebuttal. Admittedly, there's some interpretation going on. But, it's not a stretch. Correct me, if you feel you must. But stop playing the victim card.
As to needing to change, I would agree. I'm pretty sure that's clear.
Doug
<<<You use this defense quite a bit to try to bully others into not pressing you on your points, Heathyr. I see it frequently. It hasn't worked for you.>>>
That's complete 100% BS. I don't know why you saw fit to make this about me, but let's just stick to the VERB okay? If you would simply stop trying to assign judgments on what I'm saying and simply reply to the points I've made, we'd get along just fine. As for "bullying" others...please. I am more than capable of defending my points on their own merit, but I am not playing this ridiculous game of ad hominem attacks. Especially over such a trivial topic.
If you'd like to argue more accurately, you might want to go light on the "interpretation". If you don't understand something, ask.
What a gargantuan waste of time. There are days I wonder why I even play this game.
~ Heathyr
That's complete 100% BS. I don't know why you saw fit to make this about me, but let's just stick to the VERB okay? If you would simply stop trying to assign judgments on what I'm saying and simply reply to the points I've made, we'd get along just fine. As for "bullying" others...please. I am more than capable of defending my points on their own merit, but I am not playing this ridiculous game of ad hominem attacks. Especially over such a trivial topic.
If you'd like to argue more accurately, you might want to go light on the "interpretation". If you don't understand something, ask.
What a gargantuan waste of time. There are days I wonder why I even play this game.
~ Heathyr
It is possible that I'm confused. I see a post that suggests sticking to the verb, and professes confusion about why things are about the poster, when the balance is nothing about the verb and everything about that poster. This seems to include a trivialization of others' opinion, and a veiled threat. I do tend to expect more, especially from 'elders', and that could very well lead to my confusion.
Let's see where it goes, though.
Summarizing my previous posts about the verb, my perspective is quite simple. The verb should be visible to others, as a role-play vehicle. It'd be nice to round it out a bit, to enhance its utility as a role-play vehicle. I do not agree that it needs to lead to combat in each and every case -- even as the verb is implemented today. I acknowledge one very narrow and limited utilization outside of combat is recognized.
Amplifying a bit, the hangup seems to be in the verbiage 'beats you severely'. In my opinion, knowing nothing about the protagonist and antagonist in the scenario, it's certainly possible. No matter how powerful the wizard, a quick smack upside the head, straddling the chest and beating on -- no matter how ineffectually -- would certainly appear to be a severe beating.
Then comes that crucial facet we, as 'elders', should be protecting -- the moment of choice in how to proceed. Or stated differently, 'how will I role-play this'? The wizard may opt for any number of combat or non-combat related responses. A quick lecture (usually putting the antagonist to sleep in the process), leveling the poor slob (combat), attempting to level the poor slob only to find out that might not be a wise choice (combat), mentally cracking and leveling the entire room (combat), whimpering and accepting the drubbing (perhaps extending the 'wimp' facet of the response further), or determining because of standing in House, Society, relationship, or other reason that the beating shouldn't be challenged, no matter how ineffectual the severity. In short, it's a choice, and we should do everything we can to encourage choice -- always.
My point -- removing it as an 'unnecessary' verb closes yet one more avenue for exploiting role-play. I wouldn't want to be limited by the ability of others to respond in this scenario, nor would I want to impose my particular type of 'choice' on someone who was going to use it.
My summary -- Leave it in. Actively explore using it. Better yet, enhance it for even broader enjoyment. And preferably, make it visible (but recognize the 'beats severely' leads to 'bad feelings' in some.)
And I try to avoid room 12A. It's dicey in there.
Doug
Let's see where it goes, though.
Summarizing my previous posts about the verb, my perspective is quite simple. The verb should be visible to others, as a role-play vehicle. It'd be nice to round it out a bit, to enhance its utility as a role-play vehicle. I do not agree that it needs to lead to combat in each and every case -- even as the verb is implemented today. I acknowledge one very narrow and limited utilization outside of combat is recognized.
Amplifying a bit, the hangup seems to be in the verbiage 'beats you severely'. In my opinion, knowing nothing about the protagonist and antagonist in the scenario, it's certainly possible. No matter how powerful the wizard, a quick smack upside the head, straddling the chest and beating on -- no matter how ineffectually -- would certainly appear to be a severe beating.
Then comes that crucial facet we, as 'elders', should be protecting -- the moment of choice in how to proceed. Or stated differently, 'how will I role-play this'? The wizard may opt for any number of combat or non-combat related responses. A quick lecture (usually putting the antagonist to sleep in the process), leveling the poor slob (combat), attempting to level the poor slob only to find out that might not be a wise choice (combat), mentally cracking and leveling the entire room (combat), whimpering and accepting the drubbing (perhaps extending the 'wimp' facet of the response further), or determining because of standing in House, Society, relationship, or other reason that the beating shouldn't be challenged, no matter how ineffectual the severity. In short, it's a choice, and we should do everything we can to encourage choice -- always.
My point -- removing it as an 'unnecessary' verb closes yet one more avenue for exploiting role-play. I wouldn't want to be limited by the ability of others to respond in this scenario, nor would I want to impose my particular type of 'choice' on someone who was going to use it.
My summary -- Leave it in. Actively explore using it. Better yet, enhance it for even broader enjoyment. And preferably, make it visible (but recognize the 'beats severely' leads to 'bad feelings' in some.)
And I try to avoid room 12A. It's dicey in there.
Doug
My kingdom for an edit button!
My only thoughts on making it visible to all is it doesn't seem to make sense in enough situations to warrant it in its current form.
Think about what it means when you hear it in common usage, such as the news: "he was beaten severely". To me, beating someone "severely" is almost necessarily indicative of causing harm - otherwise the beating isn't "severe"; it's just being wailed on ineffectually.
Take this scenario: A giantman warrior, top end of size and weight, is being "beaten severely" by a burghal gnome empath, pretty much the opposite end of the spectrum.
Place these two in town square, going about their normal business. Do we really think this gnome is going to be able to walk up to this giantman under normal circumstances and beat him severely? It seems unlikely, and to me it just doesn't add up.
In my opinion, it almost seems the anti-thesis of reasonable roleplay by putting these parties in an unrealistic situation, particularly the one on the receiving end.
Throw in people just randomly walking into TSC and "beating <someone> severely", and said "someone" laughing or rolling their eyes...it just doesn't make sense TO ME.
My only thoughts on making it visible to all is it doesn't seem to make sense in enough situations to warrant it in its current form.
Think about what it means when you hear it in common usage, such as the news: "he was beaten severely". To me, beating someone "severely" is almost necessarily indicative of causing harm - otherwise the beating isn't "severe"; it's just being wailed on ineffectually.
Take this scenario: A giantman warrior, top end of size and weight, is being "beaten severely" by a burghal gnome empath, pretty much the opposite end of the spectrum.
Place these two in town square, going about their normal business. Do we really think this gnome is going to be able to walk up to this giantman under normal circumstances and beat him severely? It seems unlikely, and to me it just doesn't add up.
In my opinion, it almost seems the anti-thesis of reasonable roleplay by putting these parties in an unrealistic situation, particularly the one on the receiving end.
Throw in people just randomly walking into TSC and "beating <someone> severely", and said "someone" laughing or rolling their eyes...it just doesn't make sense TO ME.
>>Warrior / gnome comparisons.
By and large, I would agree that sharing the verbiage of 'beats severely' might be a bit much. Even though ultimately, it would be the warrior's choice to put up a reasonable defense, or take it.
But, keep the same scenario and have the 'public view' changed to something like 'gnome sizes warrior up, then jumps on him and begins flailing away.' Left open to the warrior to continue the press, take it, or walk away from it.
Again, I'm not holding tightly to the verbiage -- and would caution against its use for the public view.
But retire the verb? Or not open it up?
Doug
By and large, I would agree that sharing the verbiage of 'beats severely' might be a bit much. Even though ultimately, it would be the warrior's choice to put up a reasonable defense, or take it.
But, keep the same scenario and have the 'public view' changed to something like 'gnome sizes warrior up, then jumps on him and begins flailing away.' Left open to the warrior to continue the press, take it, or walk away from it.
Again, I'm not holding tightly to the verbiage -- and would caution against its use for the public view.
But retire the verb? Or not open it up?
Doug
<<<It is possible that I'm confused. I see a post that suggests sticking to the verb, and professes confusion about why things are about the poster, when the balance is nothing about the verb and everything about that poster. This seems to include a trivialization of others' opinion, and a veiled threat. I do tend to expect more, especially from 'elders', and that could very well lead to my confusion.>>>
I was going to let this go, as it seems to be sinking deeper and deeper into absurdity. But I am entranced by this sentence: "This seems to include a trivialization of others' opinion, and a veiled threat."
First, I'm not in the habit of "trivializing" opinions. You have a right to your opinion, and I have a right to mine. Expressing an opposing viewpoint is not "trivializing" yours. Don't blame me if you have a weak argument.
Second is the matter of my alleged "veiled threat". I am brimming with curiosity as to what, exactly, you think I am capable of "threatening" you with. A sensible argument, perhaps? I could see how that might terrify you, but I'm not sure it qualifies as a "threat". Seriously, I can't fathom what you're referring to. It's beyond ridiculous. Let me be absolutely clear: I made no threat, veiled or otherwise. It's not in my character to go around threatening people. It's such an outlandish accusation, I can only wonder why you'd toss it into a discussion about--ostensibly--a legacy verb that has been little more than a tongue-in-cheek joke for the better part of two decades. To do so suggests some personal issue with me that goes beyond this argument, which, frankly, is your problem, not mine.
But since we've finally came full circle back to the topic...
<<<I do not agree that it needs to lead to combat in each and every case -- even as the verb is implemented today.>>>
The argument isn't that it leads to combat, the argument is that it is combat. You don't get to "beat someone severely" without a fight--there's a combat system for that. That's why the verb can only be considered a private joke, at best. It's not a wonderful RP tool. This is not to say it couldn't be an RP tool, but then we're talking about changing it into something else (i.e. NOT the free severe beating it currently implies).
For it to be useful in the way you're suggesting, the wording would have to be changed, and a system of checks and counters put in place. We can discuss that, if you like. We can also discuss whether it should or shouldn't be changed, at all. That's all fine, I'm open to any such discussion. But to argue that, in its current form, it's a great "RP" starter...is--and I'm sorry if this "trivializes" your opinion--laughable. Maybe we simply have different standards as to what constitutes "good" roleplay. Would there be legitimate uses for the "beat severely" messaging if it were made visible? Of course. But any such use should be consensual, or we have a pretty blatant potential for abuse.
In the interest of shifting towards an actual constructive discussion, here's an idea for a complete revamping of the Punish verb:
[ungrouped, unfriendly demeanor]
Brutus clenches his fists and stares at you intently, giving you the unmistakable impression he intends to pummel you into the dirt. You can CONSENT to the beating, REJECT it, or COUNTER it.
>consent
Brutus gives you a sound whooping you'll not soon forget.
>reject
You do your best to diffuse the situation, and notice Brutus slowly unclench his fists and turn away.
>counter
Rising to the challenge, you clench your fists and face off with Brutus. He won't get the best of you without a fight.
...and so forth. If the parties are grouped, they might receive more "playful" messaging. Demeanor could also play a role in various types of outcomes. There are lots of possibilities.
Maybe this should come in the form of an entirely new verb, rather than re-purpose the old "punish" verb. I don't know. Not sure I care either way, really.
~ Heathyr and friends
I was going to let this go, as it seems to be sinking deeper and deeper into absurdity. But I am entranced by this sentence: "This seems to include a trivialization of others' opinion, and a veiled threat."
First, I'm not in the habit of "trivializing" opinions. You have a right to your opinion, and I have a right to mine. Expressing an opposing viewpoint is not "trivializing" yours. Don't blame me if you have a weak argument.
Second is the matter of my alleged "veiled threat". I am brimming with curiosity as to what, exactly, you think I am capable of "threatening" you with. A sensible argument, perhaps? I could see how that might terrify you, but I'm not sure it qualifies as a "threat". Seriously, I can't fathom what you're referring to. It's beyond ridiculous. Let me be absolutely clear: I made no threat, veiled or otherwise. It's not in my character to go around threatening people. It's such an outlandish accusation, I can only wonder why you'd toss it into a discussion about--ostensibly--a legacy verb that has been little more than a tongue-in-cheek joke for the better part of two decades. To do so suggests some personal issue with me that goes beyond this argument, which, frankly, is your problem, not mine.
But since we've finally came full circle back to the topic...
<<<I do not agree that it needs to lead to combat in each and every case -- even as the verb is implemented today.>>>
The argument isn't that it leads to combat, the argument is that it is combat. You don't get to "beat someone severely" without a fight--there's a combat system for that. That's why the verb can only be considered a private joke, at best. It's not a wonderful RP tool. This is not to say it couldn't be an RP tool, but then we're talking about changing it into something else (i.e. NOT the free severe beating it currently implies).
For it to be useful in the way you're suggesting, the wording would have to be changed, and a system of checks and counters put in place. We can discuss that, if you like. We can also discuss whether it should or shouldn't be changed, at all. That's all fine, I'm open to any such discussion. But to argue that, in its current form, it's a great "RP" starter...is--and I'm sorry if this "trivializes" your opinion--laughable. Maybe we simply have different standards as to what constitutes "good" roleplay. Would there be legitimate uses for the "beat severely" messaging if it were made visible? Of course. But any such use should be consensual, or we have a pretty blatant potential for abuse.
In the interest of shifting towards an actual constructive discussion, here's an idea for a complete revamping of the Punish verb:
[ungrouped, unfriendly demeanor]
Brutus clenches his fists and stares at you intently, giving you the unmistakable impression he intends to pummel you into the dirt. You can CONSENT to the beating, REJECT it, or COUNTER it.
>consent
Brutus gives you a sound whooping you'll not soon forget.
>reject
You do your best to diffuse the situation, and notice Brutus slowly unclench his fists and turn away.
>counter
Rising to the challenge, you clench your fists and face off with Brutus. He won't get the best of you without a fight.
...and so forth. If the parties are grouped, they might receive more "playful" messaging. Demeanor could also play a role in various types of outcomes. There are lots of possibilities.
Maybe this should come in the form of an entirely new verb, rather than re-purpose the old "punish" verb. I don't know. Not sure I care either way, really.
~ Heathyr and friends
>>Second is the matter of my alleged "veiled threat". I am brimming with curiosity as to what, exactly, you think I am capable of "threatening" you with. A sensible argument, perhaps? I could see how that might terrify you, but I'm not sure it qualifies as a "threat". Seriously, I can't fathom what you're referring to. It's beyond ridiculous. Let me be absolutely clear: I made no threat, veiled or otherwise. It's not in my character to go around threatening people. It's such an outlandish accusation, I can only wonder why you'd toss it into a discussion about--ostensibly--a legacy verb that has been little more than a tongue-in-cheek joke for the better part of two decades. To do so suggests some personal issue with me that goes beyond this argument, which, frankly, is your problem, not mine.
You asked yourself publicly why you play this game, some days - a veiled threat to leave. You've shown you can't even be civilized enough to just do it quietly. And you're exactly right -- I am one of the few people who takes threat of loss rather personally. Even (especially) someone like you, I would hate to see find justification through dissatisfaction of 'debate'. You're correct, it's my issue, not yours. That makes it no less a threat, and I'm calling you on it. Especially since you like it to be all about you. Stop trying to bully others (most notably, me, in this case -- I'm not sure many others feel as I do about this) with this type of attitude. It's not going to work here.
As to trivializing others opinions -- "A sensible argument, perhaps?"; "It's beyond ridiculous."; "I don't see how differing views..."; "Especially over such a trivial topic." These are all quotes from you, from your posts in the series. Each of them takes up the position of trivializing a view offered. Another facet of behavior you express frequently. This doesn't bother me so much -- have a field day with it, it's common practice these days. But, don't expect it to 'win you the debate' in my view. If you'd like to know how perhaps to improve here, example below:
As to the verb, it would appear there's only one component we really aren't aligned on. You clarified it by suggesting that the verb itself expressed to you combat mechanics. It wasn't that it might lead to choice, but that this verb was itself already a choice -- one can't beat another severely outside of combat. I appreciate that clarification. /End example.
My family (my brothers, my children, parents and grandparents, nephews, nieces, etc., etc.), my classmates (school at all ages), my clubs (chess club, whee!!), school bus rides, these are all examples where actions were traded that could be understood as 'being severely beaten', and yet -- I wouldn't call it combat. I will freely admit there's a grey line -- and I will also freely admit that while my daughters beat as often as get beaten -- they generally avoid the more physical side. The mental drubbing, however, is best avoided, believe me.
It may be as simple as different life experiences, but I can correlate a great many things I see, every day, with how I envision the punish verb could be used. I don't see putting someone in a headlock and dragging them around while sternly illuminating points of view as 'combat', but it is a punishing lecture to be sure. A whack on the knuckles in the Abrahamism school of choice would qualify in my view. In fact, this is one example of whether physically or not you could overcome the adversary, you'll take the punishment and try to move on. Playground bullies sitting astride a child, poking them in the old 'water torture' method fits. Hell, even today's commercial with the kid that rounds up other kids to play tackle football against those bullies is punishment. I'd even nod to 'ritualistic combat' if that's how you feel about football. Cutting someone off in a vehicle and then pacing oneself so as to impede that someone's progress against their will qualifies.
I agree that the words 'beats you severely' aren't equitable to each, nor are they likely what we would want to use for everything public. But there are a great many reasons to have this verb in play, and visible. In a way that enforces the 'choice' of the action, the building of the contest, the prologue to the war or the thorn amongst the rose.
Doug
You asked yourself publicly why you play this game, some days - a veiled threat to leave. You've shown you can't even be civilized enough to just do it quietly. And you're exactly right -- I am one of the few people who takes threat of loss rather personally. Even (especially) someone like you, I would hate to see find justification through dissatisfaction of 'debate'. You're correct, it's my issue, not yours. That makes it no less a threat, and I'm calling you on it. Especially since you like it to be all about you. Stop trying to bully others (most notably, me, in this case -- I'm not sure many others feel as I do about this) with this type of attitude. It's not going to work here.
As to trivializing others opinions -- "A sensible argument, perhaps?"; "It's beyond ridiculous."; "I don't see how differing views..."; "Especially over such a trivial topic." These are all quotes from you, from your posts in the series. Each of them takes up the position of trivializing a view offered. Another facet of behavior you express frequently. This doesn't bother me so much -- have a field day with it, it's common practice these days. But, don't expect it to 'win you the debate' in my view. If you'd like to know how perhaps to improve here, example below:
As to the verb, it would appear there's only one component we really aren't aligned on. You clarified it by suggesting that the verb itself expressed to you combat mechanics. It wasn't that it might lead to choice, but that this verb was itself already a choice -- one can't beat another severely outside of combat. I appreciate that clarification. /End example.
My family (my brothers, my children, parents and grandparents, nephews, nieces, etc., etc.), my classmates (school at all ages), my clubs (chess club, whee!!), school bus rides, these are all examples where actions were traded that could be understood as 'being severely beaten', and yet -- I wouldn't call it combat. I will freely admit there's a grey line -- and I will also freely admit that while my daughters beat as often as get beaten -- they generally avoid the more physical side. The mental drubbing, however, is best avoided, believe me.
It may be as simple as different life experiences, but I can correlate a great many things I see, every day, with how I envision the punish verb could be used. I don't see putting someone in a headlock and dragging them around while sternly illuminating points of view as 'combat', but it is a punishing lecture to be sure. A whack on the knuckles in the Abrahamism school of choice would qualify in my view. In fact, this is one example of whether physically or not you could overcome the adversary, you'll take the punishment and try to move on. Playground bullies sitting astride a child, poking them in the old 'water torture' method fits. Hell, even today's commercial with the kid that rounds up other kids to play tackle football against those bullies is punishment. I'd even nod to 'ritualistic combat' if that's how you feel about football. Cutting someone off in a vehicle and then pacing oneself so as to impede that someone's progress against their will qualifies.
I agree that the words 'beats you severely' aren't equitable to each, nor are they likely what we would want to use for everything public. But there are a great many reasons to have this verb in play, and visible. In a way that enforces the 'choice' of the action, the building of the contest, the prologue to the war or the thorn amongst the rose.
Doug
>This thread is surreal.
I couldnt agree more. I sometimes wonder why I dont add more accounts at times like this. Who knew you could have such a passionate long winded debate about a verb that probably gets less use than most others. Someone find Taverkin and ask him to post his opinion on this issue too, please.
I couldnt agree more. I sometimes wonder why I dont add more accounts at times like this. Who knew you could have such a passionate long winded debate about a verb that probably gets less use than most others. Someone find Taverkin and ask him to post his opinion on this issue too, please.
<<<You asked yourself publicly why you play this game, some days - a veiled threat to leave.>>>
That's your "veiled threat?" No wonder I missed it. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but no...that was not a "veiled threat to leave". If I want to leave, I'll explain why (or not) and I'll leave. I have no interest in playing these kinds of head games. I say what I mean, nothing more and nothing less. You never need to read between the lines of my comments, or project your own insecurities onto me. What you see is what you get.
I appreciate it when people debate my points. I don't appreciate it when they attack my character.
<<<Stop trying to bully others (most notably, me, in this case -- I'm not sure many others feel as I do about this) with this type of attitude.>>>
How can I be trying to bully others, and playing the victim card? That doesn't make sense. I can't be both the bully and the victim. Pick one or the other and stick with it.
By the way, how about letting other people speak for themselves. You keep hinting at all these other people in other discussions in other threads. That's rubbish. Let's stick to this discussion in this thread.
Or maybe we should start a whole new thread just about me, since that seems to be what you want to discuss.
<<<As to trivializing others opinions>>>
Again, simply expressing an opposing viewpoint is not "trivializing" your opinion. Don't blame me if your argument is weak to begin with.
Let me remind you, you're the one who made this personal. You accused me of being some kind of forum outlaw, going around bullying people while, paradoxically, playing the victim card. It's called an ad hominem attack and it's a pretty cheap way to try to diminish my argument while bolstering your own. Note, I never attacked your basic character, as you have mine. I may not go easy on the contents of your argument, but that's what a debate is all about. Can't take it? Don't play. You chose to engage me, I didn't attack you. Now man up and quit trying to make me out to be the wicked witch of the forums. I'm not that powerful, and I'm not that bad. I'm actually pretty easy to get along with.
~ HH
That's your "veiled threat?" No wonder I missed it. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but no...that was not a "veiled threat to leave". If I want to leave, I'll explain why (or not) and I'll leave. I have no interest in playing these kinds of head games. I say what I mean, nothing more and nothing less. You never need to read between the lines of my comments, or project your own insecurities onto me. What you see is what you get.
I appreciate it when people debate my points. I don't appreciate it when they attack my character.
<<<Stop trying to bully others (most notably, me, in this case -- I'm not sure many others feel as I do about this) with this type of attitude.>>>
How can I be trying to bully others, and playing the victim card? That doesn't make sense. I can't be both the bully and the victim. Pick one or the other and stick with it.
By the way, how about letting other people speak for themselves. You keep hinting at all these other people in other discussions in other threads. That's rubbish. Let's stick to this discussion in this thread.
Or maybe we should start a whole new thread just about me, since that seems to be what you want to discuss.
<<<As to trivializing others opinions>>>
Again, simply expressing an opposing viewpoint is not "trivializing" your opinion. Don't blame me if your argument is weak to begin with.
Let me remind you, you're the one who made this personal. You accused me of being some kind of forum outlaw, going around bullying people while, paradoxically, playing the victim card. It's called an ad hominem attack and it's a pretty cheap way to try to diminish my argument while bolstering your own. Note, I never attacked your basic character, as you have mine. I may not go easy on the contents of your argument, but that's what a debate is all about. Can't take it? Don't play. You chose to engage me, I didn't attack you. Now man up and quit trying to make me out to be the wicked witch of the forums. I'm not that powerful, and I'm not that bad. I'm actually pretty easy to get along with.
~ HH
I apologize to everyone who's endured this silliness so far. I take full responsibility, I shouldn't have taken the bait. I know better. But I've enjoyed some of the off-the-wall comments... :)
Surreal is right. I never in a million years would have thought I'd be involved in a knock-down drag-out over the punish verb, of all things. Oh, the irony... :D
~ Heathyr and friends
Surreal is right. I never in a million years would have thought I'd be involved in a knock-down drag-out over the punish verb, of all things. Oh, the irony... :D
~ Heathyr and friends
>>This thread is the punish verb irl
Heh. If it weren't so snarky sounding even to me, I'd make some comment about Methais getting his wish. Let's see. . . Man up. OK, that's fairly easy, regrettably.
There's more than enough responsibility to go around, but 'bait' isn't how I'd characterize the exchange offered me. I will own my portion, and appreciate the humor in the defusing.
I take the count of the question "Why is PUNISH invisible to others?" as two "for" (if I can count Methais as for), two "opposed", and several non-stated on the question.
The "for" position has to do with role-play (at least 50 percent of it does :). The "opposed" position calls out that the verbiage is a combat result, not a role-play result.
The weak(?) role-play position suggests parallels and even points out examples of how it could be (and is!) used in game. The combat position has. . . taken up foreplay as one instance of role-play that it might fit, but beyond that has -- erm. . . -- petered out.
And one question that I feel compelled to answer -- TARDIS or edit button? Either works for me. :D
Since the rest is drivel, I'm moving along to getting along. Anyone care to break the tie while we're all here, rolling in sardonic amusement over ironies?
Doug
Heh. If it weren't so snarky sounding even to me, I'd make some comment about Methais getting his wish. Let's see. . . Man up. OK, that's fairly easy, regrettably.
There's more than enough responsibility to go around, but 'bait' isn't how I'd characterize the exchange offered me. I will own my portion, and appreciate the humor in the defusing.
I take the count of the question "Why is PUNISH invisible to others?" as two "for" (if I can count Methais as for), two "opposed", and several non-stated on the question.
The "for" position has to do with role-play (at least 50 percent of it does :). The "opposed" position calls out that the verbiage is a combat result, not a role-play result.
The weak(?) role-play position suggests parallels and even points out examples of how it could be (and is!) used in game. The combat position has. . . taken up foreplay as one instance of role-play that it might fit, but beyond that has -- erm. . . -- petered out.
And one question that I feel compelled to answer -- TARDIS or edit button? Either works for me. :D
Since the rest is drivel, I'm moving along to getting along. Anyone care to break the tie while we're all here, rolling in sardonic amusement over ironies?
Doug
I can't fathom how most of this thread was even left up, without a Moderator yanking it for being little more than fluffed-up bickering and rampant abuse of a thesaurus. Seriously. 90% of this wasn't even a conversation relevant to PUNISH beyond the irony of how punishing the thread itself became. All it was missing was several logs of Throgg using the verb in-game, and it'd hit the hat trick of "Why did I keep reading?".
<In the interest of shifting towards an actual constructive discussion>
If it was to be visible, it could be, but to avoid a great deal of misuse or poor R/p by some that could abuse it it would be best to be changed completely to something like;
punish xxxxx
you let off a volley of verbal abuse clearly intended to provoke xxxxxx
and the public view;
yyyy glares at xxxxxx fists clenched, posed to strike while screaming and yelling in anger at xxxxxx
Then it does not reflect any actual action, but cleary can be used as a prelude or invite to CVC if both desire.., or it can just be ignored or responded to in another manner without consensual combat being implied.
