DeletedUser
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
[spoil]
Thanks for adding valid points to the conversation, however, lets get back to the original argument that started it all. You are claiming that it is OK for forum readers to assume that since one member of a tribe is being an idiot, it is safe to conclude through stereotyping, that (i dont want to use the word "all") MOST of the tribe members must be as-well because that tribe doesnt censor their members
The best example i can find are Sqid and Glynjack. Although these players dont like me, I have respect for them because they speak their mind. Sqid says he wouldnt have allied W2V if here were duke, and he wouldnt mind attacking them. Glyn says attacking MoM sounds like fun. I doubt Niyah or Rukoh can prevent them from expressing their opinions. However, I'm not going around claiming that because these players share their thoughts, that MoM-W2V despise each other guts with no respect for one another.
[/spoil]
Thanks for adding valid points to the conversation, however, lets get back to the original argument that started it all. You are claiming that it is OK for forum readers to assume that since one member of a tribe is being an idiot, it is safe to conclude through stereotyping, that (i dont want to use the word "all") MOST of the tribe members must be as-well because that tribe doesnt censor their members
The best example i can find are Sqid and Glynjack. Although these players dont like me, I have respect for them because they speak their mind. Sqid says he wouldnt have allied W2V if here were duke, and he wouldnt mind attacking them. Glyn says attacking MoM sounds like fun. I doubt Niyah or Rukoh can prevent them from expressing their opinions. However, I'm not going around claiming that because these players share their thoughts, that MoM-W2V despise each other guts with no respect for one another.
Rand_Althor
Contributing Poster
- Reaction score
- 38
I think your taking the wrong approach to this argument. If a player expresses his idea in a clear concise and respectful manner it reflects well on that person and their tribe. Therefore there is no need for the leader to intervene unless the said member is expressing something totally against the leaders wishes. You stated yourself that you respect these players, therefore they must be portraying themselves well to gain the respect of any 'enemy' (shall we say :icon_cool
player, and in turn portraying there tribe well.The point being made is when people portray themselves as a 'troll', abusive or unrespectfull poster it reflects on the tribe, because he is a member of a tribe. MoM/RW/W2V/OhYeah are only names and can change at any moment, it is the members that create a tribe, and a tribe is nothing without it's members. So if a member speaks in a degrading/unrespectfull manner he is rightly tarnishing his tribe because he belongs to it. I seen it before and on this world where a leader has had to tell a member/ entire tribe :icon_eek: to be quite on the forums. It's called Propaganda for a reason, because the public impression is swayed by what is said. :icon_cool:
DeletedUser
Guest
[spoil]
If Rand is against me then i must be wrong :icon_redface:
I take back everything i said, one person does represent an entire group. The world is a better place now. :lol:
[/spoil]I think your taking the wrong approach to this argument. If a player expresses his idea in a clear concise and respectful manner it reflects well on that person and their tribe. Therefore there is no need for the leader to intervene unless the said member is expressing something totally against the leaders wishes. You stated yourself that you respect these players, therefore they must be portraying themselves well to gain the respect of any 'enemy' (shall we say :icon_cool
The point being made is when people portray themselves as a 'troll', abusive or unrespectfull poster it reflects on the tribe, because he is a member of a tribe. MoM/RW/W2V/OhYeah are only names and can change at any moment, it is the members that create a tribe, and a tribe is nothing without it's members. So if a member speaks in a degrading/unrespectfull manner he is rightly tarnishing his tribe because he belongs to it. I seen it before and on this world where a leader has had to tell a member/ entire tribe :icon_eek: to be quite on the forums. It's called Propaganda for a reason, because the public impression is swayed by what is said. :icon_cool:
If Rand is against me then i must be wrong :icon_redface:
I take back everything i said, one person does represent an entire group. The world is a better place now. :lol:
Rand_Althor
Contributing Poster
- Reaction score
- 38
I think I've found my new job!
Sick of 2Hot clogging up your thread?
Want to have peace on PnP?
Can't read important posts due to 2Hot?
Sick of seeing that ugly Avatar? :icon_neutral:
Contact Rand @ Rand_althor your friendly forum exterminator. :icon_cool:
DeletedUser
Guest
DeletedUser
Guest
I claim nothing of the sort. The actions of a single member of a group hardly establish a stereotype.
What I assume is happening here (I can't be certain I have not read all the garbage here, nor do I intend to) is a compounded situation, one member acts out in a negative manner, nobody from his tribe, especially leaders speaks out against this behavior. So the assumption is drawn that this type of behavior is accepted in that particular group. This is a reasonable assumption to make and can be found all throughout society.
For example, if a known serial killer flees to a neighborhood and is then harbored and protected by the people in that neighborhood. What would you think of the people in that neighborhood? Once again, it's natural and a survival mechanism to make the jump that they are also dangerous people. Because it is the most likely situation. And as we know, the most likely explanation is usually the most accurate. However, because we made this assumption does it make it a fact? No, of course not. But it makes it safe to assume so, unsafe to assume otherwise.
History has shown over and over again that people keep company with people most similar to them. When you see photos of street gangs, do you ever seen an odd man out? You certainly don't, they all look like thugs. You can notice this with any segment of society, groups form together out of common interests or causes. While it's true that TW is not an exact replica of society, it still follows the same basic rules.
DeletedUser
Guest
To be fair 2Hot, this forum is called PnP - politics and propaganda. What forms a large/pretty much fundamental part of both of those? Opinions. A lot of propaganda is opinionated and steeped in bias.
I'm enjoying this debate as it is civiled, eloquent and generally fun. So stay away for a bit Rand! :lol:
For the record; I'm not saying it's okay to be ignorant, I was just describing the phenomena by which it happens (naturally... and even in some cases biologically - take for instance someone disliking the taste of mushrooms and then being sick after it or being allergic to it - and then psychological phenomena of not eating anything mushroom like. Or take disliking the taste of milk and dairy products making you feel queasy).
Unfortunately, as you can see with murder/ignorance/racism and a lot of generally other bad things; education won't cure it. Why? Because humans are naturally flawed; unlike you 2hot, while I believe we can improve in some areas, there are some that won't ever change. Like for instance there will never be a world (pun intended as we are playing TW) without greedy people. Regardless of how much education and englightment people go through - some will always want more.
As I said before, in a perfect world, your opinions would only reflect upon yourself. But we are "built" and have come evolved to live in social groups as I mentioned. Part of the issue with living in groups is that everything you do will influence someone else's opinion of the group, somewhere else. It's not something that can be helped or be changed - Zurtle gave a concise and clear response about my points to you, which I largely agree with. As a human, despite everything, you will find it almost impossible to actually be alone. There's a planet with another 6.5 billion plus of people here. You can feel alone and you can physically be alone in a given space, but you will never be alone (if that make sense to you). Really. Like a person who falls into depression, locks themselves away in their flat - anyone who knows them or who ever communicates with them in any form will form an opinion about them even though they are almost a recluse. (Even people who become recluses were in a community or a group of some kind (could just be with their parent)).
Also, for the record, I never assigned a positive connotation to my message (please note that accepting natural phenonema is not the same as condoning it - I accept that earthquakes will continue to happen, does not mean that I say "Having earthquakes is good!"). My message wasn't really about whether or not it's okay to stereotype or to be ignorant. It's more to do with the idea that we as humans will have opinions of, well, pretty much everything. It's something that you can't change. And not all opinion will be negative. Obviously, opinion fuels emotion, which is in part guided and created by chemicals. Emotions can manifest themselves biologically or chemically (dopamine being the most obvious example of the opposite, of biology to emotion, or just emotion to biology. Or adrenaline when you're scared, there's a lot more that I could actually go into here). Therefore, all of that is interlinked. And try as hard as we might, we won't beat human nature because it's steeped in human biology and construction. Therefore, there will always be positive and negative opinions of people.
Now that we got that out the way, onto the main point here:
I think you're arguing two different questions that you're trying to force into one, which gives a conflicting and controversial answer.
1) Is one person truly reflective of the sampled group they belong to?
2) Can the image of one person's thoughts or actions influence the perception of said group?
To answer:
1) No. This is obvious, as you have pointed out. A person, picked at random from my previous example of a religion, maybe an extremist, someone who never really practices it but believes in it, etc. This does not make their views representative of the sample they are taken from. So no; the argument between Mike and Nem isn't truly reflective of Ohyeah at all.
However, with that being said:
2) Will arguments like the ones between Mike and Nem lead to stereotyping and to generalisations about Ohyeah players? Definitely. Just like the terror attacks led to the general ignorance and stereotyping of some "Eastern" [not trying to offend anyone as most religions are global now!] religions (which, by and large, turned into racism and unfair harrasment, but in some cases (significantly lower) had positive outcomes where bombers were caught much earlier because of racial profiling.)
Is it unfair? Yes, definitely so. Will it happen anyway? Yes. Can things like education/proper forethought/etc change that? No - why? Because we are driven by emotion, perception and action.
To properly return to your original argument:
[spoil]Who started this whole concept of "one person represents EVERYONE in his tribe on the externals"?
Do you seriously believe this, or just say it in a weak attempt to make an entire tribe look bad because of one of its members stumble?
I think any sane person with the ability to think can see that an individual, no matter what tribe he's in, can always have his OWN opinion that doesnt reflect the ENTIRE tribe. [/spoil]
The word "reflect" was what was causing the issue;
It won't reflect the actual personality and temperament of the members, no.
But their actions will reflect back on Ohyeah regardless, in terms of perception and opinion of said tribe.
Trying to merge those two points is where this argument stems from.
It's not so much that one person REPRESENTS their entire tribe.
It's just that any public action will then have a CONSEQUENCE (in terms of a negative perception [ie a negative "reflection] of the opinion of their tribe in the public eye.
I think I've sufficiently and succinctly covered why that happens.
I'm enjoying this debate as it is civiled, eloquent and generally fun. So stay away for a bit Rand! :lol:
For the record; I'm not saying it's okay to be ignorant, I was just describing the phenomena by which it happens (naturally... and even in some cases biologically - take for instance someone disliking the taste of mushrooms and then being sick after it or being allergic to it - and then psychological phenomena of not eating anything mushroom like. Or take disliking the taste of milk and dairy products making you feel queasy).
Unfortunately, as you can see with murder/ignorance/racism and a lot of generally other bad things; education won't cure it. Why? Because humans are naturally flawed; unlike you 2hot, while I believe we can improve in some areas, there are some that won't ever change. Like for instance there will never be a world (pun intended as we are playing TW) without greedy people. Regardless of how much education and englightment people go through - some will always want more.
As I said before, in a perfect world, your opinions would only reflect upon yourself. But we are "built" and have come evolved to live in social groups as I mentioned. Part of the issue with living in groups is that everything you do will influence someone else's opinion of the group, somewhere else. It's not something that can be helped or be changed - Zurtle gave a concise and clear response about my points to you, which I largely agree with. As a human, despite everything, you will find it almost impossible to actually be alone. There's a planet with another 6.5 billion plus of people here. You can feel alone and you can physically be alone in a given space, but you will never be alone (if that make sense to you). Really. Like a person who falls into depression, locks themselves away in their flat - anyone who knows them or who ever communicates with them in any form will form an opinion about them even though they are almost a recluse. (Even people who become recluses were in a community or a group of some kind (could just be with their parent)).
Also, for the record, I never assigned a positive connotation to my message (please note that accepting natural phenonema is not the same as condoning it - I accept that earthquakes will continue to happen, does not mean that I say "Having earthquakes is good!"). My message wasn't really about whether or not it's okay to stereotype or to be ignorant. It's more to do with the idea that we as humans will have opinions of, well, pretty much everything. It's something that you can't change. And not all opinion will be negative. Obviously, opinion fuels emotion, which is in part guided and created by chemicals. Emotions can manifest themselves biologically or chemically (dopamine being the most obvious example of the opposite, of biology to emotion, or just emotion to biology. Or adrenaline when you're scared, there's a lot more that I could actually go into here). Therefore, all of that is interlinked. And try as hard as we might, we won't beat human nature because it's steeped in human biology and construction. Therefore, there will always be positive and negative opinions of people.
Now that we got that out the way, onto the main point here:
I think you're arguing two different questions that you're trying to force into one, which gives a conflicting and controversial answer.
1) Is one person truly reflective of the sampled group they belong to?
2) Can the image of one person's thoughts or actions influence the perception of said group?
To answer:
1) No. This is obvious, as you have pointed out. A person, picked at random from my previous example of a religion, maybe an extremist, someone who never really practices it but believes in it, etc. This does not make their views representative of the sample they are taken from. So no; the argument between Mike and Nem isn't truly reflective of Ohyeah at all.
However, with that being said:
2) Will arguments like the ones between Mike and Nem lead to stereotyping and to generalisations about Ohyeah players? Definitely. Just like the terror attacks led to the general ignorance and stereotyping of some "Eastern" [not trying to offend anyone as most religions are global now!] religions (which, by and large, turned into racism and unfair harrasment, but in some cases (significantly lower) had positive outcomes where bombers were caught much earlier because of racial profiling.)
Is it unfair? Yes, definitely so. Will it happen anyway? Yes. Can things like education/proper forethought/etc change that? No - why? Because we are driven by emotion, perception and action.
To properly return to your original argument:
[spoil]Who started this whole concept of "one person represents EVERYONE in his tribe on the externals"?
Do you seriously believe this, or just say it in a weak attempt to make an entire tribe look bad because of one of its members stumble?
I think any sane person with the ability to think can see that an individual, no matter what tribe he's in, can always have his OWN opinion that doesnt reflect the ENTIRE tribe. [/spoil]
The word "reflect" was what was causing the issue;
It won't reflect the actual personality and temperament of the members, no.
But their actions will reflect back on Ohyeah regardless, in terms of perception and opinion of said tribe.
Trying to merge those two points is where this argument stems from.
It's not so much that one person REPRESENTS their entire tribe.
It's just that any public action will then have a CONSEQUENCE (in terms of a negative perception [ie a negative "reflection] of the opinion of their tribe in the public eye.
I think I've sufficiently and succinctly covered why that happens.
DeletedUser95593
Guest
Im getting too old for this shit.
DeletedUser101120
Guest
I was asked to write a 16 line rap about OHYEAH so im gonna do it in this thread as to not go off topic in the other http://forum.tribalwars.net/showthread.php?t=245729&page=2
I like to drink my kool aid with ice,
but Sarubh had to snipe me three times thrice,
Now he is gone and Ohyeah has no1 to go to
Its time for Mom to walk all over you
haha jk this isnt a ment to be mean
Its just my sense for rhyme is real keen,
Yes i know raps dont rhyme every line
But i smash this so hard it sounds so fine
This war has been a fun one with nothing but respect
My incoming from OHYEAH have been nothing to neglect
They keep me busy and i have a fun time
I know what your thinking man he can rhyme
I think this war will determine the rest of the world
but after some of these external posts, i basically hurled
Now i only have one more thing to say...
The last day of this world, will be MoMs finest day
I like to drink my kool aid with ice,
but Sarubh had to snipe me three times thrice,
Now he is gone and Ohyeah has no1 to go to
Its time for Mom to walk all over you
haha jk this isnt a ment to be mean
Its just my sense for rhyme is real keen,
Yes i know raps dont rhyme every line
But i smash this so hard it sounds so fine
This war has been a fun one with nothing but respect
My incoming from OHYEAH have been nothing to neglect
They keep me busy and i have a fun time
I know what your thinking man he can rhyme
I think this war will determine the rest of the world
but after some of these external posts, i basically hurled
Now i only have one more thing to say...
The last day of this world, will be MoMs finest day
DeletedUser98802
Guest
suc·cinct (s
Really Greg? Really?
DeletedUser
Guest
suc·cinct (sk-sngkt)adj. suc·cinct·er, suc·cinct·est 1. Characterized by clear, precise expression in few words; concise and terse:
Really Greg? Really?
Considering the last time I spoke about this topic, I wrote about 10,000 more words on it.... That's as concise as you'll get from me :icon_redface: (Just joking, by the way!)
Nah.... It's concise for a (rather crude but effective) scientific argument. I could go into much more actual detail about neural networks, learning processes, etc...
I suppose the most succinct answer I can give, to appease you Tom is;
"If you do bad-bad in front of people, it no look good for your people". :icon_smile:
Also, when have I ever responded with a reply below the threshold of the wall of text?
DeletedUser74275
Guest
Agreed.
Gregoun writes a book in response :icon_wink:
well at least the externals came alive, thanks biscuit and nemesis
DeletedUser
Guest
Agreed.
Gregoun writes a book in response :icon_wink:
well at least the externals came alive, thanks biscuit and nemesis
Hey, not my fault if you can't be bothered to read it all.... :icon_cool: It beats the pointless flaming going on, by a long shot.
Rand_Althor
Contributing Poster
- Reaction score
- 38
DeletedUser95593
Guest
OHYEAH down by 98 villages today, oh no.
Where is this amazing well coordinated tribe that brought down Haul and CODE? :icon_rolleyes:
Where is this amazing well coordinated tribe that brought down Haul and CODE? :icon_rolleyes:
DeletedUser
Guest
[spoil]
DeletedUser
Guest
Thanks for the kind words, much appreciated (I dont get that often:icon_redface
And now to disagree with you:icon_razz:
I think most of us here are intelligent enough here (ahem) to distinguish between tribal PnP and personal opinion. Most posters objection to nemmy is that his posts are always personal and its usually "Woe is me" and is rarely (if ever) about whatever tribe he has managed to wangle his way into (Old/CODE/OHYEAH). This always IMO gives the impression that he plays this game as a lone wolf and is against what most of us in this game hold dear i.e. loyalty to others, teamwork, bigger picture etc
Roo has never (on any world I have played with him on) intervened in anything that has been said on externals (except to manipulate popularity votes in his favour) as most of W2V's external presence is obviously either PnP or personal opinion and is never personal e.g Majesctic or QuickPick.
I have a lot of respect for OHYEAH's posters like Ma2cin and paolo, but there is never a time and a place for nemmy and mikes personal vendetta and I would like to think that leadership of OHYEAH should have stepped in sooner as it is easy to misconstrue the personal nature of their grievances and it has already put OHYEAH in a poorer light than before the war, no matter how obvious it may be to regular posters in this forum to be able to recognise it for what it is
