Topic

EDITORIAL:A proposal in regards to planting trees.

DATELINE: Primuary 16th, 11:53 PM

-Louise Pasture, Groddle Meadow

An Open Letter to the Glitchen of Ur:

I have been paying close attention to the aftermath of the recent tree-poisoning incident and have come up with an idea. Every Glitch has the right (and responsibility) to plant and care for the trees from which they harvest materials. Therefore, I propose that a consensus-driven  Arborers' Guild be established to oversee the preservation of all Ur's tree populations, as well as acting as a resource for Glitchen who wish to learn more about how to plant and care for trees. The members of said Guild would be asked to help restore areas affected by Rook attacks and Raids to their previous state. Membership would be open to all Glitchen who wish to join. 

What led me to write this, you ask? The simple answer is this: The fate of Ur is in our hands, and we owe it to ourselves and to all Glitchkind to work together in the imagining and building of this wonderful place we call home. Ur is what we make it. If we are to build a beautiful Ur then we MUST work together to make it happen.

Thoughts anyone?

-Glitch DJTch7

The opinions printed here are those of Glitch DJTch7 and are not necessarily those of the Giants. Take once a day with butterfly milk. Not void where not prohibited. Read at your own risk.
 

Edit- changed "democratically-run" to "consensus-driven".  Thank you to Freddie for pointing this out.

Posted 14 months ago by DJTch7 Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

Previous 1 2
  • Maybe each person in the guild could be designated a head of a particular tree. Maybe a group for each tree's individual preservation. Then the leaders of those group are part of a Tree UN of sorts.

    Ultimately the Arborer's guild then decides together which areas should be given to each tree type. Then the guild and its members focus on keeping the order of said schema.

    I'd obviously like to enter in the running for lead spicer.
    Posted 14 months ago by Mr. Dawgg Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I support this endeavor. Community solutions are good solutions.

    Ideally I think the Arborers' Guild should be a place where we can discuss how resources should be arranged and come to a common conclusion that we can work towards. Yeah, we'll still have back and forth but with a clearer community idea of how things should be it will be much easier to work in unison towards common goals.
    Posted 14 months ago by Abby Smalls Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Great idea.  Seconding Abby's thoughts.
    Posted 14 months ago by Lara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Right, Abby, we will disagree on things, but it will come to a vote or whatever, and we'll come to an agreement. While I would support an all spice in Ix, I would accept the decision of the group if it was to be half-half.

    This would be far superior than random squabbling.
    Posted 14 months ago by Mr. Dawgg Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Mr. Dawgg suggested:  " the Arborer's guild then decides together which areas should be given to each tree type".

    I think that giving any area over entirely to a single tree type (with the possible exception of the dark side of Ix) is unfortunate.  I understand that different players have different styles; some people like to do very focused harvesting of a single resource, while I prefer usually to wander and gather a bit of everything.  The built-in restrictions of the types of trees possible in each area gives some support for the folks who prefer concentration, but concentrating zones further into single tree types is a bummer/bore for wanderers like me.
    Posted 14 months ago by Fnibbit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • What "previous state" are you talking about?  The way Glitch looks depends on which group in the tree wars has been most successful in the recent past.  Tree wars have been going on for more than a year.   Which particular timepoint are you choosing?
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Fnibbit, the AG would decide zone by zone or plot by plot. Ultimately deciding where best to have each tree.

    I was actually thinking about the 'wanderer factor' that you expressed. Main routes could be interspersed with different types of trees. Possibly, the core areas of Groddle could be left to pure chaos as well. But designated areas could be individual regions. Bortola is bubble region, for example. But we might not do this for every single zone. Again, I'm more spit balling here. Overall, I think having a community group to settle these matters is the wisest choice.

    This would also give us grounds to oust aggravators like the ones from last night. Only if what they are doing is considered 'personal' can they be considered doing something wrong. If we have a community process that says where certain trees should be, we can accuse them of going against the community. If they insist on continuing what they're doing, staff will see them as the aggravators that they are.
    Posted 14 months ago by Mr. Dawgg Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Fnibbit, I know what you mean and I agree that just dividing the zones into a single type is honestly not a good idea for plenty of reasons, aesthetic and practical.

    More generally it would be to try to determine and maintain a general consensus on how to manage trees. For some (beans/cherries) it's pretty unimportant, but for Gas, Spice, and Bubbles there are concerns about accessibility, and having a plan to manage that could be helpful to everyone. (Not to mention wood trees and the problems innate to their own differences).

    We have the wonderful resource locator tools, but it would be nice to have a place to coordinate information as well - to be able to say "OK, for eggs, here is a particular route of streets that will net you x many" and have that sort of tips in a topic somewhere.
    Posted 14 months ago by Abby Smalls Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Good thinking Abby. I like the idea of the AG helping everyone maximize paths for maximum harvest in least amount of time. That's brilliant.
    Posted 14 months ago by Mr. Dawgg Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Although I agree that this is an ambitious and philanthropic endeavor, I am afraid that I see it as a futile effort.
    You can plan and plant all you like, but someone will be right behind you with poison and an axe, rearranging everything that you just did.  People are going to poison and replace trees at will, regardless of what the Arborers' Guild  decides.  You have to poison trees just to get all of the achievements in the game...it's part of the game.  The devs gave us the power to do this.

    QUOTE:
    "This would also give us grounds to oust aggravators like the ones from last night. Only if what they are doing is considered 'personal' can they be considered doing something wrong. If we have a community process that says where certain trees should be, we can accuse them of going against the community. If they insist on continuing what they're doing, staff will see them as the aggravators that they are."

    There are no rules in this game against poisoning trees, destroying trees, axing trees, or keeping certain trees in certain regions.  I don't see why the staff would get involved in the goings-on of the tree situation.  Just because one group of players think things should be done a certain way doesn't mean that everyone else will agree, or even has to agree, and there is certainly no basis for making formal complaints about players who do not agree with the tree group.  You will never get thousands of players to agree to this, I'm sorry to say.

    The locator reference that was spoken of will be outdated just as soon as it's updated.

    I can appreciate the sentiment behind this suggestion, but I just don't see how it would possibly work.
    Posted 14 months ago by Poppy of Detwoit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Democracy is just dictatorship by a majority. Consensus is the way to go. In the (obvious) absence of consensus... "and it harm none, do what ye will"
    Posted 14 months ago by Freddie the Fearful Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Freddie: an*.  means 'if'.

    ;) don't mind me.  Half-awake with a splitting headache.  Is this going to be a 'group' or just a forum thread?  Or some other structure?
    Posted 14 months ago by Lara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I never knew, I've been spouting this for yrs assuming Mediaeval Wiccans were just piss-poor spellers... 
    Posted 14 months ago by Freddie the Fearful Subscriber! | Permalink
  • My opinion about the 'poisoning trees' scene is just that - an opinion. It is not made more valid by being in a guild formed to protect the game environment from those whose actions are inconsistent with 'make it grow, make it stronger.'

    Well-intentioned, but no. I'm not the one doing anything amiss; no to protective guilds, vigilante patrols, aggressive replanting, bonding, whatever. Sorry.
    Posted 14 months ago by TK-855 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Lara- this is merely a discussion for ideas regarding how best to preserve and protect Ur's trees. What comes of this will be entirely up to we, the Glitchen. 
    Posted 14 months ago by DJTch7 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I am all for a harmonic balance of resources.  I support this movement and will join.  Where do I sign?
    Posted 14 months ago by Joojoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Another note: I am merely proposing that we discuss ideas. I would encourage anyone who wishes to step up and lead this effort to do so.
    Posted 14 months ago by DJTch7 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm afraid I'm against anything that creates more bureaucracy or politics.  Forming such a guild will be pointless, because it cannot be in charge of anything.  There are no means of enforcing anything in this game.  Shunning never works, and I hope the TS staff will never choose to ban people for doing things allowed by the game, and not specified in the Terms of Service. 

    Anyone with the skills, resources and supplies can interact with trees/rocks/patches/animals in any way that the game mechanics allow.  Anyone else can come along and apply their own interactions to the same item immediately after and modify the outcome in any way the game mechanics allow.  If you want to spend all of your own game time trying to undo actions of others that you disapprove of that is your choice.  I try to be responsible in my use of the public resources and environment by adding animals, tending trees, mining to encourage respawning, but I'm not willing to join in wars or governments.  Good grief, IT'S A GAME FOLKS!!!

    If you have good ideas for how to modify the game mechanics by increasing cool down times, imposing limits, etc, you can send those to the Devs on the ideas forums.  But people who are determined to grief others will simply find the loopholes in the new system, or move on to other means of annoying you.  You are giving them way too much power by letting them control your behavior and attention this way.
    Posted 14 months ago by KhaKhonsu Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Mereret, I'm a bit perplexed by your post.  On one hand, you are saying it's perfectly reasonable to play Glitch how you want to play it, and on the other you are telling people they are wasting their time by playing Glitch how they want to play it.  If a group wants to organize themselves, using the tools provided by the game, to help correct the balance of resources, after they've been skewed, that's how that group chooses to spend their time and quite frankly, you are no one to dictate how they should spend their time.  If you do not want to be a part of such a group, that's obviously your choice, but it seems to me you are not practicing what you preach when you call someone's idea "pointless".  And, in fact, I believe you do not have a clear enough understanding of what's being discussed here.  No one is advocating any dictatorial actions.  No one is talking about a war effort.  It's merely an attempt to redistribute a healthy balance of resources should the need arise to do so.  This is a virtual world that we have been entrusted to help shape (you're inside their thoughts, go and make them bigger).  I view this as precisely the kind of action that Glitch was intended to foster.
    Posted 14 months ago by Joojoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Trees must die.  I will see to it until I'm blue in the face.
    Posted 14 months ago by Tobias Fünke Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Tobias-  You're part of Ur's mining industry, right?

    Edit: I only ask because I am working on a story idea for an upcoming issue of The Glitchen ImaginatUr and would like to ask you a few questions about mining.

    Edit Part 2: Changed Weekly to Glitchen. It's late and I need sleep, apparently.
    Posted 14 months ago by DJTch7 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I dabble in everything.
    Posted 14 months ago by Tobias Fünke Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I don't really want to get into any of these big tree disputes. I just want to water, pet and harvest them and move on.

    I do think though that perhaps people could get together with their neighbours and decide what trees they want on their street. I'm not sure how region restrictions apply to streets (is it the same as houses where you can have any tree? Or only specific ones like outside streets), but that way if you had a street full of chefs they might want all spice, or a mix of spice and beans. Seems a little easier to me than fighting over regions saying one should be all this or all that. Just a thought anyway.
    Posted 14 months ago by Sunburst Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm all for trying to keep tries at reasonable levels, but I don't think this will work because there are no consequences in Glitch.  So what if a person goes against the guild and poisons things?  The guild says "Boo you're a bad person." and nobody cares.  The poisoner just runs around till he/she finds an unguarded tree and does their thing.

    Are members of this guild going to just sit around in front of all the tress of Ur all day?  If you guys want to, more power too you but that's not how I want to play my game.  I'm all for groups against rook attacks or for the preservation of wood trees but honestly trying to police the entire world seems a bit much.  Unless there are sufficient people out there who enjoy doing that in their spare time.

    The only thing I can see that will help is that it should cost the same in terms of energy/materials/times etc. to antidote a tree as poison it.  The way it seems right now is it's far easier to kill a tree than to save it.  While more accurate to real-world mechanics, in a ruleless game it makes things a bit harder.

    tl;dr: Balance the game mechanics and if people want to bee the Tree Police that's their business but I don't think it will help anything.
    Posted 14 months ago by Space Core Subscriber! | Permalink
  • uhh, why do we think this is about tree police?

    i thought it was about trying to work together as a community instead of arbitrarily poisoning, antidoting, poisoning, antidoting, poisoning, antidoting and generally not being very productive?  maybe i misunderstood.

    i'm certainly not a fan of tree police either.  but i didn't think that was the point of the OP.
    Posted 14 months ago by Lara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Lara: I'm just saying there are "tree griefers", if you will, who will want to have whatever trees they want in whatever area or just poison trees just for kicks no matter what the guild says.  And by themselves a few of them are going to do a lot more damage than a guild trying to make decisions on where things are.

    I'm not saying it's a bad idea to get community consensus on tree placement, just with the griefers and the lack of consequences, I'm not sure how any of the decisions of the body will be respected unless we have a tree police guarding every street.
    Posted 14 months ago by Space Core Subscriber! | Permalink
  • many agreements in society can be generally accepted without needing enforcement, just from the fact that it will benefit everyone.  i'm sure none of us particularly enjoy constantly buying up tree poison/antidote, and then have our actions annulled by the reverse.  i can't imagine someone thinking "oh oh oh can't wait to get back to glitch and stress myself out poisoning trees and waiting around for them to die and hoping someone doesn't antidote them" or, conversely, "wow i just love spending my time haunting my favourite trees checking to see if they've been poisoned so I can spend a bunch of money on antidote to save them."  that just doesn't sound like my idea of fun.  maybe some people enjoy it.  I can certainly think of much more i would rather be doing.

    since the OP was kind of in RP voice, you might think of it as being 'let's make decisions and impose them on others' :P But judging by the content of what he said as well as his responses elsewhere in the thread, i think what he is asking for is communication.  the fact is, either we all care less about what trees are planted around us, or we try and co-operate to not frustrate ourselves and each other in the process of optimising patches for the common good.  and co-operation needs communication.  not sure about everyone else, but i'm all for communication.

    edit: btw I'm not sure why OP changed his phrasing from 'democratic' to 'consensus-driven'.  can someone explain?  not that i'm sure we're going to get either democracy or consensus perfectly anyway - i'm just curious.
    Posted 14 months ago by Lara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Sunburst: Block patches have the same requirements as the region they're in, rather than the free-for-all that houses themselves have.
    Posted 14 months ago by Little Miss Giggles Subscriber! | Permalink
  • If people want to organise to protect trees and enforce their own view of what trees should go where (as well as they can with poisoning relatively easy) they should. It seems a very glitchy thing to do.

    I'm sure they cannot get it entirely their own way, but that's good. At the same time, I'd hate to think it is only tree-killing griefers who have the energy to change Ur.
    Posted 14 months ago by Axe-a-lot-l Subscriber! | Permalink
  • QUOTE!:
    "There are no rules in this game against poisoning trees, destroying trees, axing trees, or keeping certain trees in certain regions. "

    The aggravators were not at fault for poisoning or destroying or axing (wait, aren't these all the same thing?) trees. They were at fault for aggressively antidoting trees in order to disrupt regular, acceptable uses of tree poisoning. I was told by the staff on duty that they would not be put in timeout because they were not doing anything personal. If the community has a set tree schema that it goes about to maintain as best it can... and a group of instigators unrulingly goes against said scheme in a persistent fashion... we might have grounds to have them thrown in time out. That is, they'd make their tree guarding a personal attack on a community's tree schema.

    Mereret and others who are saying the group wouldn't do anything or would be fruitless, etc. I disagree. None of us are as strong as all of us. If the Arbor Guild decides to organize, it will be very effective. It's all a matter of finding motivated individuals who want to agree on a tree schema, and then work together to maintain it.
    Posted 14 months ago by Mr. Dawgg Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Ah, bummer about the region specificness. Oh well, hopefully we'll get houses in Ix sometime, and they can be full of gas/spice trees too :D
    Posted 14 months ago by Sunburst Subscriber! | Permalink
  • You've exactly defined the problem - none of us are as strong as all of us.  Except there is no "all of us."  Obviously there are lots of very different perspectives on the correct distribution, use and maintenance of resources.  That's obvious from reading any three consecutive posts on any of the threads and chats that have been devoted to the tree topic, or how to mine "properly," or animal populations.  It feels like I'm back in the real world hearing people argue over healthcare and bailouts and stimulus packages.  There is no consensus, and there never will be, except maybe among your own exclusive clique.  If some group sets itself up to try and control how to manage resources in Glitch, some other groups will form up to try and enforce a different view, and they will keep flaming each other back and forth in chats and forums, until that is much more annoying than the original behavior or the imbalance of resources.  It's not the people choosing as individuals how to play the game, but the people generating politics and trying to create mechanisms to control how others play the game that drive me nuts.
    Posted 14 months ago by KhaKhonsu Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Mereret, really not sure where you're coming from here.  I read your other post in this thread as well.  Sounds like you're not enjoying the game, and are saying that this is as good as it gets?  Would appreciate clarification - I suspect I'm not the only one who's a bit confused by what you are trying to communicate, sorry!

    Edit: Or wait, maybe you feel the current poison, antidote, poison, antidote, poison, antidote situation is perfectly fine and there is nothing wrong with it (and no way to improve on it)?  Just trying to think of other ways I could have interpreted your comments.
    Posted 14 months ago by Lara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm enjoying the GAME just fine.  I'm learning new skills and gathering resources, and hoping for more interesting quests and projects to come up. 

    I'm not enjoying having the forums and the chats dominated by the politics of tree and mining wars.  If some individual replaces one kind of tree with another, fine, the game lets them do that; I've done it myself for various reasons.  But in this thread there are people saying that:
    - they have the right and duty to control resource distribution for everyone else
    - their idea of how to play the game correctly is better than someone else's
    - other people should be banned for their legal in-game actions

    People keep talking about the community going downhill, and to me it's this kind of politics that will ruin it.  There have been other threads with people trying to control or dictate how other people should play the game, and that's when you start to interfere with my fun, and to me that's intolerable.  No other player has the right to limit what I do in the game, and only the Staff have the right decide what's possible for me to do in the game, and what's unacceptable behavior for someone holding an account.
    Posted 14 months ago by KhaKhonsu Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Mereret, Maybe I missed a post, but I sure never saw anyone mention banning until you just said so.  Do you think you might (possibly possibly) be exaggerating a bit?
    Posted 14 months ago by Lara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Unless the OP has been edited, which it might well have.
    Posted 14 months ago by Lara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Lara:  Getting people banned, or at very least in some hot water with the staff, has been mentioned twice now by Mr. Dawgg.  I have the impression that his basis for wanting this group organized and "enforced" (by whom I'm not sure) is so that when people play the game in a way that he and the rest of the group don't agree with that they can use their organization as a basis to have those other people taken out of the game by the staff.

    Is that not what has been proposed throughout this thread? 
    Posted 14 months ago by Poppy of Detwoit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I am trying to figure out how to explain why this is extremely, extremely troubling, even if it sounds like a good idea.

    There is an inherent flaw in "protecting" us from "fringe groups" and improper tree distribution, guiding is toward a more "efficient" and "appropriate" layout of trees. EVEN IF the members are wise and experienced and believe they're being fair.

    Because that means that this group is claiming stewardship of something that is basically everyone's by right. Not just one/a few areas. Every area.

    And I know you'll say that the other groups are doing that, but it's different--this group would set itself up as legitimate and fair when, despite efforts and openness and a chatroom, it is only really fair to people who a) have been playing long enough to know that the "plant anything, it's fun!" theme of the tutorial has been voted out by a group of players and b)  agree that trees in areas should be formally decided on.

    This group would say, we are the best and fairest governance council, so not to listen to us is to go against what everyone has agreed is best.

    Glitch is basically a sandbox. Even if it seems like it would solve a problem, there are issues with nominating yourself the condominium association of a sandbox shared by people. It's not fair to say "if you want to change it, join the condominium association." That means that the votes will be overrepresented by people who enjoy serving on condominium associations.

    Does that make sense? A group can't fairly apportion things that don't belong to that group in specific. In my view it isn't a big problem when it happens in a few areas, but it really is when a group claims it can know/will "fix" one of the few visible changes that people can make in the glitch ecosystem.
    Posted 14 months ago by Pomegrandy Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I like the idea, and I think it would work.  I think it would work best if it defined some sort of consensus goals in the nature of  (just a hypothetical example), "Groddle Meadow will be maintained at approximately 40% fruit, 35% bean and 25% bubble.  There will be at least 1 of each type of tree on any street with 5 or more patches."  Then if it is noticed that someone has radically altered this balance the group could be called out to rebalance the population.  The best way to deal with tree griefers is simply to ignore them while they are at work (after all, it's our reaction that feeds them) and then to fix things after they are gone.  A single (or even a small group) of griefers can not win against a large group ready to deal with their depredations after they are gone.

    The place this might not work is in Ix.  I don't know whether the spicers are determined to make Ix 100% spice or whether they merely want to define and maintain a reasonable balance of spice and gas.  If the former, then an arborist group would just be adding a third party to the Ix tree wars.  But if the arborists and spicers agreed on a reasonable balance they would be able to maintain it fairly easily against those trying to eliminate the spice.

    Other than Ix, I'm not aware of any areas of serious contention, and an arborist group would simply be keeping an eye on things to rebalance tree populations if someone set out on their own to change things radically.

    The idea that this is "tree police" is absurd in that the group would have no more power or authority than any other Glitch or group of Glitchen.  They (hopefully) would simply represent the centrist view of what the Ur tree ecology should look like, and they would have the numbers to prevent any small group from radically altering this ecology.  What's not to like?
    Posted 14 months ago by Hawkwell Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Pomegrandy:  We were writing our posts at the same time.  My thoughts on your post - I would agree with you if the arborist group were going to decide, "This patch will be fruit, this patch will be bubble, etc." that would be unfortunate.  But if the group were defined as I suggested no one would be keeping an eye on each individual patch; just on the overall mix of trees, and even then only on the approximate numbers.  So if someone wants to eliminate a fruit tree and replace it with a bean that would be fine.  (Unless the street were defined as I did in my post and the tree removed were the only fruit tree on the street- but that was just an off the cuff suggestion.)  People would be free to kill and replace trees as they wished.  Only if major changes in the ecology happened would action be taken.  I suspect that when a major change in existing local tree poplulations occurs most Glitchen are unhappy about it.  But as individuals they may not have the skills and almost certainly not the time or resources to think about single-handedly redressing the balance.  Again, I say if a large group seeks to find out how most people want the ecology maintained and then organizes to generally maintain it that way, what's not to like?
    Posted 14 months ago by Hawkwell Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think there's some sort of confusion between some of the posters on this thread.  They seem to think the Glitch world was provided "as-is" to us and we're to work within that framework.  They couldn't be further from the truth.  The Glitch world was provided as a blank slate to us.  We are to shape it as we see fit.  The purpose of this idea is to discuss an issue and come to a consensus.  I don't agree that a consensus can never be reached when there are different opinions.  It happens all the time.  That's part of the discussion process.  And I most certainly don't agree with the suggestion that this is some sort of tree gestapo.  You are free to go and poison trees, if that's what floats your boat in Glitch.  No one is saying that action should be removed.  What's being said is that irrespective of the individual that wants to destroy for the sake of destroying, there should be a group that helps to restore what's been destroyed.  I honestly don't see what's so wrong about that or how impossible an idea that is to apply.  Furthermore, as I've said before, if this is not something you would be interested in, that's fine.  That's your opinion and you're entitled to express it.  But isn't arguing against the formation of this group the same kind of behavior a certain glitch was advocating against in the first place?
    Posted 14 months ago by Joojoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • That word 'guild' - brilliant! I am changing the name of my club immediatley. Henceforth I shall be a guildmaster :D
    Posted 14 months ago by xLIFEx Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I guess my problem isn't thinking that this group couldn't reach a consensus--I just think we need to wrestle with the fact that in this group's best-case scenario, consensus would be reached by self-selected people who:

    - think that consensus seeking and debating game optimization is fun
    -believe in the group's mandate
    - are willing to voluntarily not reshape a reshapable world to their preferences if the group decides something else is better

    and optionally:

    - think that shaping a reshapable world to their preferences if the group decides something else is better is wrong

    ...but the findings of the consensus would be applied to everyone.

    If a group says "we are maintaining the well-being of..." that implies that there is a moral imperative to cause world wellness by keeping a certain mix of trees. That would make at least two different groups defensive:

    - People who believe there is a moral imperative / that it causes world wellness to keep a certain mix of trees, but who have a different preferred mix
    - People who don't believe there is a moral imperative / that it causes world wellness to keep a certain mix of trees, and perceive the existence of the group as telling them what to do

    If people from either of those groups get annoyed and cause ecosystem-wide change, and I think we know the kind I'm talking about, are they wrong to do so?
    Posted 14 months ago by Pomegrandy Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Pomegrandy, you are trying to find an argument where there isn't one.  No one is saying "my consensus is better than yours".  This was a direct response to disruptive behavior.  I prefer to view it as restoration, not imposing my will on others.  That being said, the wonderful thing about communal, sandbox games like Glitch is that if you disagree with me, you can go on and change things yourself.
    Posted 14 months ago by Joojoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I know, and I'm sorry if I seem persnickety about this (clearly I'm one of the people I described as liking discussing game mechanics for forever). I don't mean that YOU are trying to inflict your will on anything, Joojoo--the more I read, the more I think it's an important discussion to have.

    For me, this gets at one of the biggest issues the glitch community is tackling right now. What is the difference between "going on and changing things [oneself]" and "disruptive behavior"? It seems like they're defined by the glitch community only one being good and the other one being bad, but in my opinion, as long as behavior doesn't directly abuse another player, it seems almost completely relative.

    I think that this group would be really well served by a position mostly judgment-neutral to ecosystem-changing events. Not caging them as trolling or disruptive, but showing a patient long-term understanding of the overall balance of things--nature marching on when the battles have ended, etc etc. The OP was really well written and rousing, but it seemed to suggest a moral mandate from the masses to work together to fix things that people have selfishly broken. That's what worried me.
    Posted 14 months ago by Pomegrandy Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think this statement is one of the reasons Pmegrandy is making his/her argument

    I was told by the staff on duty that they would not be put in timeout because they were not doing anything personal. If the community has a set tree schema that it goes about to maintain as best it can... and a group of instigators unrulingly goes against said scheme in a persistent fashion... we might have grounds to have them thrown in time out. That is, they'd make their tree guarding a personal attack on a community's tree schema.

    It is someone trying to get staff to discipline players based on what one group has decided. 
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • There's nothing wrong with coordinated activity.  Devising a tree schema and executing on that plan is something that any community can do.
    Making that schema enforceable, or reliant on Glitch staff support, is where this thing goes off the rails.
    Basically, those that wish to enforce a particular schema are well within their "rights" to do so.
    Those that wish to oppose that schema are well within their "rights" as well.
    Anything beyond that, at least to my eyes, looks like over-reaching.

    Personally, I'm not impacted as long as I have access to resources in predictable locations (ala Ix for Spice, GHeights for Bubbles, etc.).

    The other thing no one is talking about is access to wood trees.
    B/c they're overharvested, the only reliable way to get planks is to set about tree-killing.
    Personally, I try to only off bean trees, then REPLACE the trees I cut with something themely.

    That's my two currants.

    All best,

    CTP
    Posted 14 months ago by CrashTestPilot Subscriber! | Permalink
  • For the record I would have absolutely zero interest in attempting to get staff involved.  Any work as suggested in this thread would be pure community organization and anyone would be free to organize counter to it.  I simply believe it is a good idea and that it would work because it would reflect the wishes of a large majority of the Glitchen.  That last statement is, of course only my opinion, but my opinion is that my opinion is correct.  ;-)
    Posted 14 months ago by Hawkwell Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Pomegrandy, I think the distinguishing characteristic of "disruptive behavior" is engaging in behavior that serves no other purpose than to create grief for others.  For example, poisoning gas plants in Ix and planting spice plants instead, because there's a need for spice, is perfectly justifiable.  However, wiping out the gas plants for no distinct purpose other than because I can do it is what I would call disruptive behavior.  I'd also like to make it clear that I am not advocating any one plant or tree for a specific area.  I am in the camp of harmonic balance in Ur's ecosystem.  I believe all plants/trees have a use and they should all be in abundance.
    Posted 14 months ago by Joojoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @poppy of detwoit: that was not part of the group proposal, though. As far as I can tell, Mr Dawgg was communicating a suggestion in a discussion, which was rejected by various people. Is not the actual group proposal for such a discussion to exist? I think it is helpful for Mr Dawgg to see that his idea is not flawless. If a space for discussion does not exist (ie, this group simply doesn't form, we do not communicate and we simply go on squabbling) then I can't see that any improvement is possible. Unless we think that the current situation is fine and needs no rectification.

    As a matter of fact, those of us who think we should not have such a discussion space available theoretically should also disapprove of even communicating in this thread - I may be wrong, but is that not what is actually being proposed?

    You know, maybe IS is all hopeless and communication IS impossible, and there's no point trying. Isn't it ironic? I'm still behind this idea, but I honestly don't have a vested interest in gas or spice, at least not such that I'm going to bother writing the same thing over and over again. I don't even really mind that much about bubbles anymore. I'm quite happy to sit back and not be involved. I actually play this game to enjoy helping others in little ways, but I'm not going to force others to be helped either. If you folks prefer the tree wars, enjoy. If somehow you all decide that communicating is a good thing, enjoy. Anyone who wants to can add me as a friend, or block me, or whatever they want, but you'll find me ingame or in forum threads other than this one.

    Valete!

    xx
    Lara
    Posted 14 months ago by Lara Subscriber! | Permalink
Previous 1 2