Is CR pointless?

[Alutka]

Ah no, it's not what I meant. I just disagreed with the statement "if it were possible to replace them with logic robots then we would, right?" and pointed out that if something can be replaced by robots/computers it doesn't mean it gets replaced. Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.

[Money]

...

There is a big difference between prohibition and the CR.

Prohibition removed a human right to choose what they consume.

The CR stops cheaters.



The implication of comparing the two is that you feel you're entitled to break the CR (or drink Alcohol) so why bother enforcing it?... which is just insane.

Alcohol has negative effects on the body and is not uncommonly involved in criminal acts such as drunk driving or spousal abuse. People didn't end prohibition because they suddenly thought alcohol was a "good thing", it actually still had a pretty negative image, but because people realized prohibition wasn't an effective means of stopping alcohol consumption. I'm not suggesting that which the CR attempts to stop is good, I'm suggesting that the CR in its current state isn't an effective means of stopping those things.

I personally value the separation of characters and finding things out in character, however I think the CR needs to be reworked to acknowledge the reality on the ground. People talk in RL about things in game, skyping goes on, IRC exists. Does a blanket ban on all forms of OOC communication actually stop OOC communication or does it simply force people to be sneaky about it? I would love to live in a world where the CR was rigorously followed but given a world where it isn't and the limitations of a volunteer run organization which oversees a vast geographic spread of players can it really be enforced properly? Many online communities actually benefit greatly from certain types of OOC information sharing as it fosters community building and showcases player creations.

Again I'm not saying the CR isn't useful or necessary, in response to the title of this thread I respond with a resounding no, however that doesn't mean I think the CR is perfect or couldn't be made more effective.

[MattWithoos]

Ah no, it's not what I meant. I just disagreed with the statement "if it were possible to replace them with logic robots then we would, right?" and pointed out that if something can be replaced by robots/computers it doesn't mean it gets replaced. Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.

But that was exactly my point........

That's why I said judges aren't robots. It's a human process.

That's why I said we can't.

[Alutka]

....
I just said that the quoted sentence was fale. That it's logical value is 0. My god, I don't know how to explain it to you better. O.o

[MattWithoos]

... sweet mother...

Of course the sentence is false. That's my whole argument. That's PRECISELY why I said we CAN'T replace them with robots immediately after the sentence. You can't grab one little part of what I said and call that false. You need to read the entire part. Like this:

know how to explain it

Oh, you know how to explain it??

I don't know how to explain it

Oh whoops I didn't read it all. You DON'T know how to explain it.

I don't know how to explain it to you better

Ah ha, I skipped the last part you said, "better", now I understand the whole thing.

See? You need to read my whole argument. Not one sentence.

Let me make it simple for you.

Don't read just this bit:

if it were possible to replace them with logic robots then we would, right?

Because that alone implies that I'm saying we could just replace them with robots.

Read the whole damn thing:

if it were possible to replace them with logic robots then we would, right? We don't because we can't.

See how it changes the whole point?

I seriously can't believe I have to explain this. Though I guess it's just a language barrier, which is fine.

Let me know if it still doesn't make sense, and I can explain in IRC so we don't have big long explanations here.

[LittleSoul]

This thread is getting slightly aggressive.

[MattWithoos]

I agree, and that's partly my frustration. I feel like I'm going around in circles and Alutka is (perhaps innocently) is making an argument against my point ... using my exact point. I propose we continue this on IRC so we can immediately explain to each other what we mean and take time to understand each other's points.

[Alutka]

Apparently we live across the world in more ways than it seems.
I am not even making an argument against your point, Matt! I just disagreed with one bloody sentence. (which sentence wasn't even your point). Let us just drop it,yes, and perhaps discuss it on irc some other day. If you lived closer I would invite you for a vodka and perhaps we would understand each other then, as apparently we can't do that when we are sober. (I am being serious, it's typical Polish way of solving problems. And it works magic. Believe me)

[Willis]

So simple a simple could simply grok it.

Simple enough, but no. Faffle over one sentence and 'forget' the rest of points? Solid signpost of who and what they is. Confuse and cloud, wait till mud solidifies and pretend there's nothing hidden undeneath.

Conflict, ho!

[Alladinsane]

Well somebody is a fan of Heinlein.

Seriously though, can you two please work it out in private or on IRC?

This is not the place for a Monty Python argument sketch.
Okay, maybe it is.



If we cannot improve the tone and mutual respect in here, I will shut it down.

[MattWithoos]

I love you Alutka. You engage me in stimulating debate.

(happy Alladinsane?)

[Snickie]

Well now you're just off-topic.

[MattWithoos]

Oh god, uhm, uh, CR, uh, yeah, it's pointy, it's sharp, it gets ya bad. Uhm, pointless? No, like I said, quite sharp. Uhm...

(happy Snickie??)

[Willis]

Beatings will continue until morale imrpoves

Or baitings. Or battings. Or batons.

Nothin says respect like an waitings till thread sleaps again to quiet it down.

[Alutka]

Imho the thing is that:
a) the very idea of the CR was flawed to start with. One can not create a game and give a players such an easy way to cheat and then expect them not to do so.
b) for now no one seems to have any idea how to fix it. I on my part believe that as long as it is possible to have multiple characters the cheating will happen. And there is no way that the PD will find even most of culprits.
c) Even if someone had an idea how to fix that I highly doubt that anyone from the staff woukd really care about it. Seems that everyone prefers to pretend that the CR is actually working.

Edited:
d) Actually the CR is also naive. Of course our knowledge will always impact our actions. Claiming that it is possible to keep things 100% separate is more or less the same as claiming that we are not influenced by ads.
e) It drains out some of the fun. Like Seko who found of some other char of hers that he favourite char was going to get killed. Putting players in such a position is actually really cruel. This is a game, it should be fun.