Before I say anything else, I want to thank Buffalkill for holding in there with his thoughts. Though it may be hard to tell, I'm detecting genuine concern, not stubbornness. (Sorry, I didn't know how to say that in a more polite way.) I'm sure it's taking a massive amount of patience and time. He is raising good points, but there are also good counters. He doesn't have to defend or answer anything in this thread, but he is taking time to do so. This deserves recognition, whether or not you agree with him.That argument arose when I pointed out that 2 forum users insulted Kai by calling him an '!@#$%^&' on this thread, and a few people were falling all over themselves to excuse it by saying that they weren't really calling him an !@#$%^&, it was just shorthand for saying that he was behaving like an !@#$%^&. Whatever.
I'll give you this one, as Tom already has. I understand the distinction, but it is still not the correct way to go about this. Fair trial or not, a level of respect should be maintained for all involved. It's too late for this case, but may it be a lesson for the future.
That said, you dodged the main point I was getting at. Not only can I not see how those two different lines of logic are connected (that is, criticizing gameplay to pointing out poor word choice), I still do not see why it isn't an insult. Criticism can still be insulting, true or not. It's in the delivery; in this case, the delivery was exceptionally poor and frankly, unnecessary given the ways IC to deal with it. People make mistakes, part of the beauty of BM is that
anyone, at any time, can screw up that perfect plan you've been cooking for months or years. Talk to my good friend Merlin: He's probably the one I've seen hit that wall the most, and I still kick myself for screwing up his last one, despite it playing out according to my character.
And then also I had argued that BattleMaster is a team sport, and as a member of a team you ought to be able to criticize your teammates. Kai didn't say, for example, "You're too stupid to play BM" or "You suck because you're from country X," or anything like that. He was expressing his frustration with his teammate.
Yes, feel free to criticize your teammates...
in character. Bringing it OOC is completely unnecessary. Regardless of if it is the character or player that is limited in strategic capability, there are plenty of ways to just deal with it. You're right, he didn't say anything as you quote here... But he comes shockingly close to "You're too stupid to play BM". Must it be so painfully obvious before it is considered insulting? He indicated, in no uncertain terms, that the other player "love[d] power and position" and "throws tantrums". I don't think I've ever heard a single person on the planet Earth use the word "tantrum" unless they were trying to incense the other person. (It's like telling an angry person to calm down. Only ever makes it worse.) To me, the "love power and position" is a particularly odd choice for plain criticism... Aren't power and position the only actual forms of progression in the game?
I'll grant you that this could be considered circumstantial evidence; there's a measure of interpretation. Unfortunately for Kai, the interpretation is both necessary and intuitively followed.
I don't think it's relevant. There's no end to BM as there is in, say, a football game. So what? We're not talking about whether or not his critique was well-founded, as all of the "prosecutors" have strenuously pointed out to me, no matter whether I needed to hear it or not. It doesn't matter if we agree or disagree with his critique, he should be allowed say it, and his realm mates are allowed to refute it if they disagree.
Ah, but it is. The Social Contract and Inalienable Rights were created (
please correct me if I'm wrong) to help shape a friendly atmosphere for casual players. That atmosphere is further centered around a game that nobody can win and everybody is equal, to a large extent. The objective is not, never has been, and never will be to conquer an entire continent or to win wars. The objective is to create a simulation of a medieval world, rife with interactions both good and bad from your character's perspective.
As a direct result, Kai's character could have and should have protested the Royal Marshal, sent letters (legitimately) criticizing the poor orders and giving new ones, or started a family feud. I'm sure you can come up with even more of your own options. We're seeing only a small slice of time here, but this looks to me like a single (perhaps not even key) mistake... hardly worth the response. (That said, I also agree the two-character approach was poor, but it did go through the proper channels and does not break any rules (whether Kai feels it should or not).
He has chosen to go OOC with his comments, circumventing the wide swath of opportunities to
actually play the game or resolve this in a reasonable manner.
Now, do I believe he should be crucified for this alone? Not really, no. The nail in the coffin is that he is utterly unapologetic and sees absolutely nothing wrong with his approach. He makes it
crystal clear that a warning or any kind of light punitive action would be absolutely meaningless.
EDIT: WOW, that yellow is obnoxious!
