Lord of Shadows & The Fellowship of the Kilns

[warrri]

I can translate, no problemo mate. Shoot me a pm.

Edit: turned out my russian is worse than i thought. woops.

[Chebermech]

I noticed at least one message with broken context (skype quote copy issues), also, it wasn't me who bothered to create fake skype to take ingame opportunity, which side is open for dirty tricks?

(btw: I''ll give the clay coordinates if you're really good with english&russian, my purpose is telling the story as clean as i can)

Skype conversation was provided to us by our alies, from what it looks like in term of you conspiring against us, was confirmed when you were seen with ainran on a raid against brodgar. Even if its been edited in one way or the other, which i doubt it was, it has enough real information to draw a conclusion of who you really are. And another thing... why are you even comparing what you've done in attempt to backstab and been doing for a long time in this game which crossed with real life ($), also mentioned many times in this post, to someone who took a liberty of tricking you to get advantage in game? You know GH would come raiding you either way even if we didn't get the skype pastebin as soon as we saw you with ainran raiding brodgar.

[venatorvenator]

I'm also really keen to hear what Zox has to say about it from his perspective, but still, what-ever reasons he may have had for killing someone, most players are aware that there may be repercussions from that action.

I'm not saying there aren't reprecussions, he took a risk and it did not pay off. Now that this has all happened it's just a bit shameful to see all of this shunning after the event.

To then try and demand rl money from other players in order to prevent him taking any further measures against them simply negates any kind of understanding, reasoning or sympathy.
How can there be an excuse for that kind of behaviour .....

Honestly, I think people have a bit too much at stake here to not be biased. He tried to resolve the conflict with an ultimatum (THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT REGARDING MY OPINION OF SAID ULTIMATUM), which was to resolve peacefully (consider this a regular trade at regular rates), or let the dispute be resolved through fighting. The other side took none of it and so that's that.

I don't need a reason to explore.

I agree, and this is not my point.

You're making it sound like the killed player is at fault for not staying quietly in his village

This is not what I'm trying to say, and this is not my point.

- or for dying,

Well, it is the foragers fault for allowing himself to be caught in this situation for two reasons: not noticing his pony power and getting knocked off, and for having so little SHP that he gets KO'd from this. It could be argued his chance of survival would be significantly higher if neither of these two occured.

as you seem to consider Zox's decision to murder right and justifiable.

You're missing my point. I am trying to create discussion to hopefully expand and underside his perspective in this, justified or not.
As a sidenote: this is Haven and Hearth, literally no action is unjustified (excluding bug abuse). While you're fighting for your side, he's fighting for his. He decided to do what he thought was best, and died because of it. These are facts, you can twist words either way to suppose one side is or is not justified.

Arguing that a 3-person village should have a two-hour radius free killzone territory "for safety" sounds wrong in many levels.

You're missing my point. Zox did what he wanted to, just as the forager did as he wanted to. Both players have agency over their actions and claiming one is right and the other is wrong defeats the purpose of the mechanics within the game.

As for assuming, there are a few reasonable courses of action Zox could have taken, including saying "hello" or asking what he was doing here, instead of killing him and taking his gear.

Comes down to agency. Zox had no duty to do anything and in the cold, cold game of Haven he did what many have done before: kill in cold blood.

Personally, judging from his chats, I think he was just trying to make large villages fight each other, then profit with the trade boost quietly in his hard-to-reach map border village.

Personally, I think he cares too little about the outcome of this and you guys care too much. He has had alterior motives, that should be clear. Ultimately he is still the one who managed to provide tangible purpose to his Haven & Hearth playtime, everyone else doesn't get that luxury. After having left this game for 3 years and coming back, the community feels a lot more bitter now, which is part of why I have avoided participating in many discussions.

The fact that you took everything I posted as an excuse or justifications for Zox' actions speaks very loudly to me. My purpose in my original post was an inquiry to gain more information about the situation. Just because I wasn't sided with your side does not mean I have any bias towards his side. If I chose not to post from his side and instead from everyone else' side, I would just perpetuate this dumb circlejerk.

Your take on agency is the same as the devs', and it's a deontological one, meaning right and wrong are usually related to duty and seen as absolutes. In that case I agree with some of your points since this form of morality doesn't exist in the game (blackmail, on the other hand, is a real-life crime and it's wrong in this approach even if performed in-game).

However if you take an iterative consequentialist approach, which considers how much utility/benefit your actions produce over repeated instances, then Zox is wrong indeed: his actions were wrong because they were clearly leading to counterproductive results, because they were badly thought, because they would harm his trade persona, because they would damage his OOC credibility making him harder to trust for political talks, because they could lead him to a permaban due to real money trade, because a 2-hour radius killzone is impossible to maintain and would just attract trouble, and much more.

Neither of those were my point though. If everyone is automatically justified in doing whatever one wants, as you say, then there's no point in having an ICA board since politics wouldn't matter in the first place. Your question of what sense the foraging char's conduct make would also be irrelevant in this case.

Anyway, you raise suspicion on the intention of a player because he is 4 hours away from his home village, you defend Zox in his murder by saying my friend's death was his own fault and not the murderer's, and you seem to further justify Zox in killing a random stranger because he was two-hours too close to his village, so it should be no surprise I felt you were actively taking Zox's side against us. And if you do so, you should also expect me to argue against those justifications.

[jordancoles]

(warning: retarded logic)
http://pastebin.com/af03DrM7

Edit: Skimmed the wall of text and this is indeed Fake Colesie (weirdos)

[ewlol]

[2015-11-15 15:30:27] zox: looks fine, i have an offer aswell
[2015-11-15 15:31:03] zox: i could provide more clay for free
[2015-11-15 15:31:33] Jordan Coles: alright, can I send an alt to pick it up?
[2015-11-15 15:32:22] zox: yea, it could happen
[2015-11-15 15:32:37] zox: i mean, i wanna fight GH, and i need some manpower

In my opinion, this is why we raided Zox.

This is a conniving guy who is trying to involve big factions into world politics, while he sits quietly in his hermitage, making $$$ off of some bullshit infinite resource node.

If you want drama, join a big faction and start it. Don't manipulate other factions into starting wars just because you get your kicks from seeing drama.

You know, some of us don't play 24/7. We don't want wars. We want to sit inside walls and play the game every day without worrying about invaders. Don't come to Highgarden and act like a fucking fool, threatening to sic your friends in other factions at us.

Good fucking riddance, Zox.

[ApocalypsePlease]

Your take on agency is the same as the devs', and it's a deontological one, meaning right and wrong are usually related to duty and seen as absolutes. In that case I agree with some of your points since this form of morality doesn't exist in the game (blackmail, on the other hand, is a real-life crime and it's wrong in this approach even if performed in-game).

Your assessment is correct.

However if you take an iterative consequentialist approach, which considers how much utility/benefit your actions produce over repeated instances, then Zox is wrong indeed

I did not try to argue how optimal his decisions were, I tend to agree that Zox' decision making could have been better and that would have prevented a lot of this conflict. There are a lot of factors he did not take into account when making his decision; this should be inherently understood by the topic of this thread.

because a 2-hour radius killzone is impossible to maintain and would just attract trouble, and much

I agree with all of your other reasons for why his behaviours being not optimal, this one I disagree with. You are supposing he intends to actively maintain this 2 hour killzone, I would argue he is just opportunistic about people that come across this area.

Neither of those were my point though. If everyone is automatically justified in doing whatever one wants, as you say, then there's no point in having an ICA board since politics wouldn't matter in the first place.

The purpose of this board is to try to help stimulate meaningful conversations about ingame politics. It is my opinion that this board does not do what it is set out to do. Most meaningful conversations happen now outside of these public forums, instead in skype chats and other means of communication. Most posts now are shitposts and circlejerks one way or the other. This can partly be attributed to Ainran's withdrawl from most threads, as Ainran has tended to be involved in these conflicts (in this case just laterally).

Your question of what sense the foraging char's conduct make would also be irrelevant in this case.

I was inquiring, trying to figure out more about the forager's actions and intentions. While doing this I was simultaneously trying to piece together some speculation about Zox' behaviours and intentions. I think these two things together have painted my stance as pro Zox and anti forager, which is not entirely the case.

Anyway, you raise suspicion on the intention of a player because he is 4 hours away from his home village...

Going to reiterate that I was not raising suspicion, just gathering information.

...you defend Zox in his murder by saying my friend's death was his own fault and not the murderer's...

My statement claiming fault on the forager was strictly about he could have potentially (and probably IMO) avoided this situation by taking preventative measures (Attentiveness to ponypower, having more SHP). This is analogous to how one should ram check as a preventative measure to getting rammed. This hasn't been said by me, but Zox made a similar mistake by not ram checking. Other people brought up this point, but nothing about the forager.

...and you seem to further justify Zox in killing a random stranger because he was two-hours too close to his village...

Justify in terms of his agency and decision making in the position he found himself, then yes. Yes I do think the way he acted was a reasonable way for him to act within that given situation, with his given motives. Perhaps changing the word "justify" with the term "try to understand" would be more accurate.

...so it should be no surprise I felt you were actively taking Zox's side against us. And if you do so, you should also expect me to argue against those justifications.

No fault here, I hope this reply shores up some things for you. For the record I live in Ainran and have met Zox once, I try to let this not affect any possibility for objectivity.

[Patchouli_Knowledge]

Regardless of right or wrong or lack of it, agendas and purposes, and whats no, this thread (and Ainran's attack on Brodgar) is actually a refreshing change from what we had in the past with the mud slinging, 1 picture post spams, and content fluffing. All of the sides that are involved in this incident have a reason of acting, response, and their own storyline. Even the tertiary factions whom are not involve have an angle of element that also adds flavoring and we're getting a nice sprinkle of debate on the situation.

Or I just turned this thread into a food channel.

[thomas_ewing]

However if you take an iterative consequentialist approach, which considers how much utility/benefit your actions produce over repeated instances, then Zox is wrong indeed: his actions were wrong because they were clearly leading to counterproductive results, because they were badly thought, because they would harm his trade persona, because they would damage his OOC credibility making him harder to trust for political talks, because they could lead him to a permaban due to real money trade, because a 2-hour radius killzone is impossible to maintain and would just attract trouble, and much more.

Ven, while I appreciate your desire to raise the level of discourse on the fora, I think that you overlooked the prima facia evidence that hafen actually has its own socially constructed morality that changes over time and reflects some combination of the forum zeitgeist and the whims of powerful factions. The actions taken in-game by people who populate the forum, are often not in their own best interests, but undertaken to conform to this socially constructed morality. Not wholly unlike middle class people voting in favor of candidates who may appear, to outsiders, to oppose their best interests. What is in the best interest of a typical middle class voter, or player, may actually be conforming to the socially constructed moral zeitgeist, rather than a more tangible economic benefit, or some useful in-game benefit (e.g. strong forum reputation, good trade reputation, etc.).

[burgingham]

This thread took a weird turn over night Oo

@Apoc: I agree with you that killing someone who is alone in the wilderness is pretty normal in this game. It sucks for the person it is happening to, but that is not something I would start big drama over. However the killer should be aware of the consequences that come with it and that is just what happened here. This is just as normal and has the same moral implications (or lack thereof) as him killing someone in the first place. Even more so the game actually provides you with a moral compass to act upon after someone was murdered in form of an in game mechanic (scents). Or did you expect us to roll over and say: Good kill buddy, carry on! An opportunistic approach about killing people you meet is fine with me - though I would never act that way myself and think it is a very weird thing to do for someone that is a trader/make his actual living off HnH - but justifying it in some weird way, claiming he was protecting his town...I mean come on. That is absolutely ridiculous.

I find it pretty odd that you come in here and accuse people of all kinds of things and when they try to explain themselves to you in a pretty calm and mature manner, you go ahead and call them bitter. Doesn't get more ad hominem than that. I can assure you that aside from the usual hour of butthurt from the victim of the murder there was no bitterness involved. We all had lots of fun doing this, it was exciting. I can't help myself but to feel this is you talking as an Ainran member and not just gathering information. What are we supposed to tell you that makes you think we are not in fact bitter? Cheer for Zox to kill more people after he officially declared war?

I mean claiming someone extorting real money out of others is acting reasonably? Wow.

@People bringing moderators into this. What the hell does this have to do with anything? We tracked scents, made a ram, killed a murderer. It doesn't get more legitimate than that. We clearly seperated our in game roles from our moderator one, so could we maybe leave the "Jorby anal friends" shit out of this for just one time? I know this is asking a lot, but damn people...

[venatorvenator]

However if you take an iterative consequentialist approach, which considers how much utility/benefit your actions produce over repeated instances, then Zox is wrong indeed: his actions were wrong because they were clearly leading to counterproductive results, because they were badly thought, because they would harm his trade persona, because they would damage his OOC credibility making him harder to trust for political talks, because they could lead him to a permaban due to real money trade, because a 2-hour radius killzone is impossible to maintain and would just attract trouble, and much more.

Ven, while I appreciate your desire to raise the level of discourse on the fora, I think that you overlooked the prima facia evidence that hafen actually has its own socially constructed morality that changes over time and reflects some combination of the forum zeitgeist and the whims of powerful factions. The actions taken in-game by people who populate the forum, are often not in their own best interests, but undertaken to conform to this socially constructed morality. Not wholly unlike middle class people voting in favor of candidates who may appear, to outsiders, to oppose their best interests. What is in the best interest of a typical middle class voter, or player, may actually be conforming to the socially constructed moral zeitgeist, rather than a more tangible economic benefit, or some useful in-game benefit (e.g. strong forum reputation, good trade reputation, etc.).

u wot m8 if u taek an utilitarian rather than consequentialist schmoteroo then my point stands okay