The political difference between pro-PK/con-PK
Labuser
In reading the posts that have accumulated concerning pking, I've noticed
some interesting trends.
People who think pking should be a substantive part of the game and want
everyone to 'quit' whining often have similar values.
1. they tend to believe people should solve their own problems, often
saying "then get together and go kill the pkers!"
2. they tend to think everyone has the right to do whatever they want
within the legal confines of the game's rules
3. usually do not have ideas as to what is the 'right' way to plan UO
Con Pkers often seem to me to share these values.
1. tend to believe OSI should step into the game and 'fix' things they dislike
(aka pking)
2. often say that their expenditure of x amount of money entitles them to
x type of game (I spent 60 bucks so if i want a pvp switch/more gm
support/whatever then I'm entitled to it)
3. have a clear idea of how UO 'should' be played. i often read posts
suggesting different ways to restrict player behavior in certain ways
hehe. The liberal and the conservative shows his face even in UO?
Clinton
Excellent distinctions. Quite thoughtful. I must ask you, however...
Labuser wrote in message ...
>In reading the posts that have accumulated concerning pking, I've noticed
>some interesting trends.
>
>People who think pking should be a substantive part of the game and want
>everyone to 'quit' whining often have similar values.
>
>1. they tend to believe people should solve their own problems, often
>saying "then get together and go kill the pkers!"
>
>2. they tend to think everyone has the right to do whatever they want
>within the legal confines of the game's rules
>
>3. usually do not have ideas as to what is the 'right' way to plan UO
>
[Clinton]
...meaning they don't think there is a "right" way to <play> UO?
[Labuser]
>
>Con Pkers often seem to me to share these values.
>
>1. tend to believe OSI should step into the game and 'fix' things they
dislike
>(aka pking)
>
>2. often say that their expenditure of x amount of money entitles them to
>x type of game (I spent 60 bucks so if i want a pvp switch/more gm
>support/whatever then I'm entitled to it)
>
>3. have a clear idea of how UO 'should' be played. i often read posts
>suggesting different ways to restrict player behavior in certain ways
>
>hehe. The liberal and the conservative shows his face even in UO?
[Clinton]
So, which, do you feel, is which?
liz...@mrlizard.com
Well, PKers believe they have the right to rob productive citizens (miners,
loggers, monster killers) and keep their money, while non-PKers want to keep
the wealth they have rightly earned.
So PKers are tax-n-spend liberals, while non-PKers are good capitalists.
Small wonder PKers are "red", eh, Comrade?
Labuser
> Excellent distinctions. Quite thoughtful. I must ask you, however...
>
> Labuser wrote in message ...
> >In reading the posts that have accumulated concerning pking, I've noticed
> >some interesting trends.
> >
> >People who think pking should be a substantive part of the game and want
> >everyone to 'quit' whining often have similar values.
> >
> >1. they tend to believe people should solve their own problems, often
> >saying "then get together and go kill the pkers!"
> >
> >2. they tend to think everyone has the right to do whatever they want
> >within the legal confines of the game's rules
> >
> >3. usually do not have ideas as to what is the 'right' way to plan UO
> >
>
> [Clinton]
> ...meaning they don't think there is a "right" way to <play> UO?
It seems to me they tend to advocate all things as being legitimate ways
of playing UO. Whereas Conp/pks usually tend to think pking is somehow
wrong and I've evn seen the word 'immoral' thrown around to describe
pkers.
>
> [Labuser]
>
> >
> >Con Pkers often seem to me to share these values.
> >
> >1. tend to believe OSI should step into the game and 'fix' things they
> dislike
> >(aka pking)
> >
> >2. often say that their expenditure of x amount of money entitles them to
> >x type of game (I spent 60 bucks so if i want a pvp switch/more gm
> >support/whatever then I'm entitled to it)
> >
> >3. have a clear idea of how UO 'should' be played. i often read posts
> >suggesting different ways to restrict player behavior in certain ways
> >
> >hehe. The liberal and the conservative shows his face even in UO?
>
> [Clinton]
> So, which, do you feel, is which?
Hmm. To me, the pro pkers seem like conservatives and the con ppkers lean
towards being liberals. As i personally define liberal vs. conservative,
a liberal is someone who wants government (in this case OSI) to step in
and fix problems. Whereas conservatives would want to fix their own
problems without government assistance. Thus, pro pkers strike me as
being the more conservative group.
Zaphkiel
In article <labuser-1006...@scetr-67.fas.harvard.edu>,
lab...@fas.harvard.edu says...
>Hmm. To me, the pro pkers seem like conservatives and the con ppkers lean
>towards being liberals. As i personally define liberal vs. conservative,
>a liberal is someone who wants government (in this case OSI) to step in
>and fix problems. Whereas conservatives would want to fix their own
>problems without government assistance. Thus, pro pkers strike me as
>being the more conservative group.
I would have to agree. Conservatives want to be free to fuck over
their fellow man for profit, and cover their tracks with high sounding
philosophy about freedom and self-determination. Classic pro-pk.
--Zaphkiel
------------------
Spam free Usenet news http://www.newsguy.com
Janus
Thanks for putting that together. But I am kinda of confused about which PK
group you think fits which political group. Some things dont jibe...see
below
--
"Charley was right in what he said about me; namely, that I was a crap
artist. All the facts I had learned were just so much crap." Philip K.
Dick, Confessions of a Crap Artist
Labuser wrote in message ...
>In reading the posts that have accumulated concerning pking, I've noticed
>some interesting trends.
>
>People who think pking should be a substantive part of the game and want
>everyone to 'quit' whining often have similar values.
>
>1. they tend to believe people should solve their own problems, often
>saying "then get together and go kill the pkers!"
Conservative. It is the foundation of the Republican party.
>2. they tend to think everyone has the right to do whatever they want
>within the legal confines of the game's rules
This is both conservative and liberal, with strong passions on both sides.
Conservatives have their gun lobbies. Liberals have their flag burnings.
>3. usually do not have ideas as to what is the 'right' way to plan UO
Sounds kinda liberal to me.
>
>Con Pkers often seem to me to share these values.
>
>1. tend to believe OSI should step into the game and 'fix' things they
dislike
>(aka pking)
The classic liberal response.
>2. often say that their expenditure of x amount of money entitles them to
>x type of game (I spent 60 bucks so if i want a pvp switch/more gm
>support/whatever then I'm entitled to it)
A classic conservative response, in many ways, especially used by huge
corporations. We bought this land, so we can burn coal on it all day long
without filters and there aint a damn thing you can do about it....(Al Gore
comes flying in to the rescue! Go away Al! I am liberal and I still wont
vote for you!).
But this also a liberal response. I pay taxes, so this government should be
the way I want it to be.
Hell, this is a classic American response. ;)
>3. have a clear idea of how UO 'should' be played. i often read posts
>suggesting different ways to restrict player behavior in certain ways
When I first read your post, the first thing that popped to my mind on this
one was conservatism. America should be a bastion of Christian moral values.
Then I thought about liberals: America should be a compassionate state of
socialistic values. Which one is it?
I am not trying to pick a fight here...I like some of the things you pointed
out, but which group is liberal and which one is conservative? I am honestly
confused. <--- no sarcasm...honest confusion
Linflas
Whereas liberals feel this is ok as long as it is government doing the below
mentioned behaviour.
don
(Linflas & Syra LS Shard)
Zaphkiel <zaph...@home.com> writes:
> I would have to agree. Conservatives want to be free to fuck over
>their fellow man for profit, and cover their tracks with high sounding
>philosophy about freedom and self-determination. Classic pro-pk.
>
> --Zaphkiel
>------------------
>Spam free Usenet news http://www.newsguy.com
--
******************************************************************************
"God has created the cat to give man the pleasure of carressing the tiger"
Theophile Gautier
Internet: sp...@netcom.com Linflas Dragon
lin...@mnsinc.com ==(UDIC)==
www.mnsinc.com/linflas
Compu$erve: 70334,1366
******************************************************************************
Dundee
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:30:34 -0500, lab...@fas.harvard.edu (Labuser)
wrote:
>In reading the posts that have accumulated concerning pking, I've noticed
>some interesting trends.
Been reading the newsgroup for a whole DAY, have you?
>People who think pking should be a substantive part of the game and want
>everyone to 'quit' whining often have similar values.
>
>1. they tend to believe people should solve their own problems, often
>saying "then get together and go kill the pkers!"
I agree with this. However, it *is* necessary that "killing the
PKers" actually acts as some meaningful deterrant to future PKing.
Otherwise, what you're suggesting is "I do not like PvP combat,
therefore the solution is go out and seek EVEN MORE PvP combat."
>2. they tend to think everyone has the right to do whatever they want
>within the legal confines of the game's rules
And when certain behavior becomes excessive then it's necessary to
change the rules. Provide PvPers a method of engaging in PvP combat
without constantly forcing it on people that have no desire for it.
>3. usually do not have ideas as to what is the 'right' way to plan UO
I've been reading the newsgroup for a while. Everyone has ideas as to
the 'right' way to play UO. PKers tend to think the way they are
playing is 'right' and everyone else should stay in town if they don't
want PvP combat.
>Con Pkers often seem to me to share these values.
>
>1. tend to believe OSI should step into the game and 'fix' things they dislike
>(aka pking)
Uh... the lead designer has already made it very clear that he *also*
thinks PKing is out of hand and he *has* stepped into the game to
'fix' it.
>2. often say that their expenditure of x amount of money entitles them to
>x type of game (I spent 60 bucks so if i want a pvp switch/more gm
>support/whatever then I'm entitled to it)
I certainly don't feel that way.
>3. have a clear idea of how UO 'should' be played. i often read posts
>suggesting different ways to restrict player behavior in certain ways
Kill within the guild system or your character gets hosed.
You mean that one?
--
Dundee of Lake Superior - Skep...@SPAMISantisocial.com
Townstone proposal and Other Stuff:
http://dundee.uong.com
Legion
>>2. often say that their expenditure of x amount of money entitles them to
>>x type of game (I spent 60 bucks so if i want a pvp switch/more gm
>>support/whatever then I'm entitled to it)
>>
>Nowhere does it say Quake 3 on the box. As any dungeonmaster will tell
>you, an RPG is based upo a set of rules. The rules in UO have been so
>out of whack as to make everyone into TankMages, and make Pking the
>single most profitable and least dangerous 'role' in the game. This
>doesn't fit into the fiction of a continent spanning empire in any
>way.
The Quake comment is getting a little stale. Yes, you have a segment
of PKs that kill for the sake of killing, but you also have a segment
that has a purpose in mind and a specific evil they play. I can't
imagine UO with no danger element to it and taking PKs out would
remove that element.
Jaquar - Lake Superior
(it's a Q not a G)
Reavers Website : http://www.huneyvaughn.com/reavers
Dennis Heffernan
Legion wrote in message <3581e0e4....@news.supernews.com>...
|The Quake comment is getting a little stale.
But it's true.
|of PKs that kill for the sake of killing, but you also have a segment
|that has a purpose in mind and a specific evil they play.
So? They're still assholes.
|imagine UO with no danger element to it and taking PKs out would
|remove that element.
When you can stand at the bottom of Hythloth and go toe-to-toe with
the Balrons like they were sewer rats you can tell me there's no danger
in the game. Otherwise it's just a poor excuse for bad behavior.
Dennis F. Heffernan UO: Venture (Catskills) df...@worldnet.att.net
Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
"You bitch about the present and blame it on the past/I'd like to find your
inner child and kick its little ass!" - D. Henley/G. Frey, "Get Over It"
Legion
>Legion wrote in message <3581e0e4....@news.supernews.com>...
>|The Quake comment is getting a little stale.
>
> But it's true.
>
>|of PKs that kill for the sake of killing, but you also have a segment
>|that has a purpose in mind and a specific evil they play.
>
> So? They're still assholes.
>
>|imagine UO with no danger element to it and taking PKs out would
>|remove that element.
>
>
> When you can stand at the bottom of Hythloth and go toe-to-toe with
>the Balrons like they were sewer rats you can tell me there's no danger
>in the game. Otherwise it's just a poor excuse for bad behavior.
With the aid of a few clan members, there really isn't that much
danger. No one can go toe to toe with Balrons, Drakes, etc. But you
can go toe to toe with a PK, interesting...
People who kill other players while roleplaying are a rarity but they
are around, that is all I am saying. I do have a pk I use from time
to time and I do not rampant pk. I kill very selectively and I have
very set rules in my head on what I will leave behind. Keys, rune,
etc. The point is, if you can roleplay good, you can roleplay evil.
Evil players kill people, not always, but often enough.
Zaphkiel
In article <spearEu...@netcom.com>, sp...@netcom.com says...
>Zaphkiel <zaph...@home.com> writes:
>
>> I would have to agree. Conservatives want to be free to fuck over
>>their fellow man for profit, and cover their tracks with high sounding
>>philosophy about freedom and self-determination. Classic pro-pk.
>>
>> --Zaphkiel
>
>Whereas liberals feel this is ok as long as it is government doing the below
>mentioned behaviour.
>
>don
>(Linflas & Syra LS Shard)
Who do you want ripping you off? An active and rapacious corporation,
or a slow and blundering government?
The pro-pk crowd represent the top 10% of power/money in the game.
They can take care of themselves, and benefit from fewer restrictions.
Just like conservatives. And if a few poor people have to suffer so they
can make an additional 10k a week, that's fine with them.
Liberals would rather see everyone have some limits, in order to
avoid the suffering. It's just a matter of where your priorites are,
the well being of everyone, or your personal wealth.
John Wagner
Zaphkiel (zaph...@home.com) wrote:
: In article <spearEu...@netcom.com>, sp...@netcom.com says...
: >Zaphkiel <zaph...@home.com> writes:
: >> I would have to agree. Conservatives want to be free to fuck over
: >>their fellow man for profit, and cover their tracks with high sounding
: >>philosophy about freedom and self-determination. Classic pro-pk.
: >> --Zaphkiel
: >Whereas liberals feel this is ok as long as it is government doing the below
: >mentioned behaviour.
: >don
: The pro-pk crowd represent the top 10% of power/money in the game.
: They can take care of themselves, and benefit from fewer restrictions.
: Just like conservatives. And if a few poor people have to suffer so they
: can make an additional 10k a week, that's fine with them.
: Liberals would rather see everyone have some limits, in order to
: avoid the suffering. It's just a matter of where your priorites are,
: the well being of everyone, or your personal wealth.
: --Zaphkiel
It is this liberal mentality which has kept the players down.
Yes, now swords and most melee weapons do little or no damage! Just
like gun control. Imagine if you could magically make all bullets
turn rubber, a gun control advocate's dream! As a result PKs
switch to something expensive and rare yet effective in Pvp. The majority
non PK masses remain with their nerf weapons and are easy prey for the
wealthy PKs with their EV's, bolts, hoards of regs!
Let the masses play with their nerf weapons it is for the
elite to come and harvest their corpses with corp por and prepatch
xbows! The conservative mentality espouses rational justice and
rights of individuals; rights trampled on in UO, justice which is
perverted through naive automated justice systems! Criminals who
are coddled by having access to indestructible fortresses into which
little justice can reach! The greatest lesson of UO is that every
little naive fantasy of automating a justice system or 'mandating
goodness' fails. Every liberal's dream- the ability to dominate lives
100%- to turn bullets into rubber, to feed and shelter every mouth, is
a keystroke away. No one ever starved to death in UO and rent at inns is
free. And a cut from a sword can be fixed with a bandaid.
What things in UO work? What things do the unjust hate?
In some ways they hate hide and recall, because it empowers their victims
to escape.. Sometimes they like hide and recall because it allows them
to escape justice.. Hide and recall EMPOWERS individuals. When all
weapons are souped up those individuals will be EMPOWERED again. When
good individuals may attack people who otherwise would hide behind
notoriety and use exploits- individuals will be EMPOWERED yet again.
If people could actually know another person- by, say,
maintaining a last name between characters as another poster suggested,
people would be vastly EMPOWERED to pursue justice. As it is you can
befriend and help the mule of the PK who minutes earlier PKd you.
The things that pervert UO and lead to horrendous abuse are
whenever the game has attempted to DOMINATE the masses, for example
through the buggy notoriety system. Let this be a lesson.
John Wagner, Moonbat, ii, Catskills
P.S. Dennis Heffernan please don't use HTML when you reply to this.
Dennis Heffernan
John Wagner wrote in message <6lp7ll$a...@curly.cc.emory.edu>...
|P.S. Dennis Heffernan please don't use HTML when you reply to this.
I'll post any damned way I like, and you'll like it.
BTW, this thread is 100% bullshit, as I am politically to the
right of Archie Bunker and I still want PKs thrown out.
Clinton
[Labuser]
>
>It seems to me they tend to advocate all things as being legitimate ways
>of playing UO. Whereas Conp/pks usually tend to think pking is somehow
>wrong and I've evn seen the word 'immoral' thrown around to describe
>pkers.
[Clinton]
Then you haven't been reading Mr. Heffernan's posts. Shame on you!
[Labuser]
>Hmm. To me, the pro pkers seem like conservatives and the con ppkers lean
>towards being liberals. As i personally define liberal vs. conservative,
>a liberal is someone who wants government (in this case OSI) to step in
>and fix problems. Whereas conservatives would want to fix their own
>problems without government assistance. Thus, pro pkers strike me as
>being the more conservative group.
[Clinton]
Is it any wonder our world's mired itself in a political quagmire? :-)
Labuser
And what do you do as soon as the Balron's start getting the better of
you? You ask you friend to heal you because you would never take on a
balron on your own. You would only tackle it in an unfair fight.
Meaning, you would never stay and fight and let the Balron take your stuff
if it killed you. Instead, you'd run when your hp got low, and or fight
it when it is facing unfair odds.
> Legion wrote in message <3581e0e4....@news.supernews.com>...
> |The Quake comment is getting a little stale.
>
> But it's true.
>
> |of PKs that kill for the sake of killing, but you also have a segment
> |that has a purpose in mind and a specific evil they play.
Just because someone does something you don't like, doesn't make them an
asshole. How narrow minded to think that. Remember human, you'd eat
bananas until you died if the zoo keeper let you. Good thing he doesn't,
seeing as you have no idea what is best for you. I know you so well and
I've never even met you.
You're the kind of person that can never comprehend his opponent's
argument. Anyone who disagrees with you is 'just an idiot' and you
attribute all of this to the fact that, 'you're smarter than everyone
else'. We've gone over this territory before dennis the human, you're
nothing special. What a stupid argument to compare a pker to a Balron. A
pker is a million times more dangerous. Mainly because a pker can
'think'. If you're not smart enough to outwit an AI, then you've got
bigger problems than the fact that all your cool stuff gets lost when you
get pked and you hate losing cool stuff. When was the l;ast time a Balron
was clever enough to trap you someway, or to outwit you? Pks have done it
to me. I can proudly claim that no AI controlled monster has ever killed
me with the exception of those times wherein I acted either reckless or
deserved to die. The only thing that has ever even had a prayer against
me while I am concentrating is a pk.
>
> So? They're still assholes.
>
> |imagine UO with no danger element to it and taking PKs out would
> |remove that element.
>
>
> When you can stand at the bottom of Hythloth and go toe-to-toe with
> the Balrons like they were sewer rats you can tell me there's no danger
> in the game. Otherwise it's just a poor excuse for bad behavior.
>
J+K Design
> Labuser wrote:
>
> >In reading the posts that have accumulated concerning pking, I've
noticed
> >some interesting trends.
> >
> >everyone to 'quit' whining often have similar values.
> >
> >1. they tend to believe people should solve their own problems, often
> >saying "then get together and go kill the pkers!"
Lost in the maze of wanting the "game" to play the way you want it to
people really loss any objective basis for judging the "game." The game
should not be played according to the wishs of the individuals playing it
rather, I think, it should have its own internal roleplaying logic. You
don't make a good game by trying to please everyone you make it by having a
logic to the game which is more important than individual wishes - THATS
WHAT FANTASY ROELPLAYING IS ABOUT - GETTING INTO A ROLE - HAVING TO ADAPT
TO A FORIEGN LOGIC.
That doesn't mean there is no place for debate about how the game runs.
Indeed it demands such debate in order to keep things in line with the
internal logic of the game. What is Ultima's internal logic? Pass.
Hopefully OSI have a good idea and are just struggling to get it right -
but hey I think its getting better.
For me I tend to try to argue for an internal logic based on historical
reality in so much as we can understand it. Such an approach has the
advantage that it means there is an objective reality from which to attempt
to draw conclusions from. Such a logic demands the existance of player
killers by its own nature not external arguments about the morality of such
behaviour. My understanding of Fantasy RPG's is that the worlds tend to are
harsh and violent as this is what history shows us of our past (hey why
exclude the present).
I am sure there are others out there who have a radically different picture
of what they want from an RPG and i am all in favour of such people getting
the game they want - it just wouldn't be the one I play.
There are many things I find dissapointing about Ultima but my
understanding is that the developers have a clear committment to a world
which is realistic at least in so much as allowing players to opt for the
bad side.
Silverlock wrote re pk's
>
> Actuallly we tend to believe that a balanced cost/benefits sceme
> should exist. Currently the costs are few and the benefits are high to
> pking.
>
> They tend to assume that fighting back will solve the problem. It
> won't and is forcing a player to play the game in a way they don't
> wnat to but hey, so what right?
I agree with your first point and disagree with your second. Of course
fighting back could make a difference. PK's have lives to (read pk-hq) they
whinge about being picked on by OSI and great lords. They get demoralised
and quit or give up pking. These factors depend on what happens to them. If
they are getting their butts kicked and losing stats and skills that will
make a difference.
Silverlock I think you are excessively embracing the "get OSI to fix it
approach" rather than actually being prepared to change reality yourself.
Sure we can only do so much but fighting back just happens to be one of the
things we can do.
Turjan
Adept Warrior - Sonoma
"Philosophers have only attempted to interprete the world in different
ways, the point, however, is to change it."
Karl Marx
Dennis Heffernan
Legion wrote in message <3584faa9....@news.supernews.com>...
|With the aid of a few clan members, there really isn't that much
|danger. No one can go toe to toe with Balrons, Drakes, etc.
Then I guess there's always going to be danger in the game, eh?
|People who kill other players while roleplaying are a rarity but they
|are around, that is all I am saying.
And what I am saying is that it does not matter if they roleplay
or not; if you attack people who are not interested in PvP then you're
an asshole, and if I had my way, you'd be gone.
|etc. The point is, if you can roleplay good, you can roleplay evil.
Sure you can. There's a PC in my current Everway game that would
have to be considered evil. But he doesn't turn on the other PCs.
Someone acting like a UO PK in a face-to-face game would be asked which
window he'd like to leave through.
Dennis Heffernan
Labuser wrote in message ...
|you? You ask you friend to heal you because you would never take on a
|balron on your own.
I adventure alone, except when sheperding a newbie. There'd be
no one there to heal me.
|Just because someone does something you don't like, doesn't make them an
|asshole.
No, it's because they do something that says they think other people
are objects to be used for their enjoyment, and are unworthy of
consideration, that they are assholes.
|Remember human, you'd eat
|bananas until you died if the zoo keeper let you. Good thing he doesn't,
|seeing as you have no idea what is best for you.
So let's see...you later claim that I can never comprehend an opponent's
argument, but you think it is a valid debating tactic to call the opposing
advocates zoo animals who don't know what they're talking about. This is
an interesting strategy. Who do you intend to win over with it -- the
characters of _South Park_?
You're forgetting that this isn't the first time I've been on a MUD.
I've seen the PvP switch in action. I know it works.
|You're the kind of person that can never comprehend his opponent's
|argument.
I comprehend the pro-PK argument perfectly. It is simply irrelevant,
as it is based on a moral inversion.
|nothing special. What a stupid argument to compare a pker to a Balron. A
|pker is a million times more dangerous.
Obviously not, if no one can defeat a Balron in a straight fight.
|Mainly because a pker can 'think'.
PKs do not exhibit any more advanced tactics than any of the AIs.
They are actually rather simple-minded.