| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > > I don't believe it's a higher level anything, and to call it a meta-game
> > > romanticizes it beyond the point of useful discussion.
>
> I strongly agree with this point...
>
> If I rob a bank, is it a crime?... or "a Meta-game in which I proposed to
> test the gullable nature of bank tellers, the resolution of low-light
> cameras, the competancy of local law enforcement, and the ethics of the
> judicial system (and my subsequent cell-mates)?
Naturally, it could be both. It's never not a crime, of course. If someone
thinks it a meta-game, they clearly think quite differently from most people.
Again, I don't care to judge MM's game or meta-game or tactics (or whatever
you want to call them) as being noble or ignoble right now. Somewhere in what
I said -- some word choice -- my point got lost, and that was that normal
reasoning doesn't work -- normal reasoning only works when you're playing the
same game. When you're playing on one field and the opponent is playing on
another field (whether one is higher or lower the other is in the eye of each
beholder) then the rules aren't necessarily the same. I hope that clarifies
what I meant earlier when I said "lemme interject something."
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> Again, I don't care to judge MM's game or meta-game or tactics (or whatever
> you want to call them) as being noble or ignoble right now. Somewhere in what
> I said -- some word choice -- my point got lost, and that was that normal
> reasoning doesn't work -- normal reasoning only works when you're playing the
> same game. When you're playing on one field and the opponent is playing on
> another field (whether one is higher or lower the other is in the eye of each
> beholder) then the rules aren't necessarily the same. I hope that clarifies
> what I meant earlier when I said "lemme interject something."
You make a good point--it's hard to claim your opponent is cheating at
checkers when he's playing chess. However, it's a cheap maneuver to say
after the fact that you were playing a different game all along, especially
when it looks like you've lost. That is, MM (or anyone else making a
similar claim) simply lacks credibility when he asserts retroactively that
LUGNet didn't understand his game.
To rehash a metaphor from my earlier post, if MM is playing by
ProWrestling rules and the rest of us are using Marquis of Queensbury, his
tactics are simply inappropriate given the playing field. Even if he can
claim afterwards to have kicked our collective butt, he can only do so by
including the disclaimer that we chose not to join his particular game.
Further, if he were really interested in playing a game, and not in simply
spouting off noisily (and noisomely), then he shouldn't cry foul when his
game fails. If we can't (in his mind) criticize his tactics--on the grounds
that he was playing a different game--he certainly can't criticize our
response, because we were also playing a different game. Sauce for the
goose, so to speak.
Dave!
|
|
|
