What Not to Say to Another Player
From Saint George Squadron
Contents |
What Not to Say to Another Player
There are ubiquitous statements haphazardly used in nation chat and in Vent.
Here is what is said vs. its real effect (not necessarily what the speaker intended)
"It's just a game."
What does this mean? You don't put thought into your game and therefore neither should others? We shouldn't care that much since its "only a game"? Game time doesn't count like real time does so it doesn't warrant the same kind of consideration? This isn't like real-life people and therefore we don't have to cooperate, coordinate, or work together? The recipient of this statement is prompted with any of these types of questions.
Does that sound extreme? Not at all, for the, "It's just a game" statement asserts the "either-or" fallacious logic: either it matters as real-life or it doesn't matter at all since "it's just a game" and only serves to cut off the conversation entirely, inappropriately dismissing the recipients' points and disrespectfully invalidating the recipient, driving a wedge between players. I doubt people who say this want this effect but that is the effect it has.
The truth is that the game does matter. Sure, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter as much as real-life things as it does not have the consequences of real-life things such as teamwork in the workplace, economy of one's on business, or losing a real $147,000 sail-boat, but nobody is saying that. (If anyone does, we should facilitate his talking to a professional and don't laugh: it's happened at least once.)
Given that nobody's argued over real-life consequences I think we can all agree that we do spend real-life time on this game. Does anyone not value one's own time? If anyone doesn't value his own time then we should help them with their self-esteem. Otherwise, suffice it to say that we all value our real-life time--to include time spent in the game--to varying degrees but value it nonetheless. To tell a player "It's just a game" is to let the player know that you do not value his real-life time spent in the game, leaving him to find other players who will respect him and who will acknowledge his valuing his time.
"It's just pixels on a screen."
OK, then can I have some of your pixels, preferably the ones in the shape of doubloons or HMCs? No? Well why not, "It's just pixels on a screen!" That won't work, huh? Why not? Those particular pixels on your particular screen took many, many hours of effort to be arranged in that particular way. "It's just pixels on a screen" uses the logical fallacy of dismissal to ignore all the effort the player put forth and ignoring the player in the middle of the conversation is detrimental to the conversation! (Think: "Talk to the hand!")
I think you should give me one HMC or 2,800,000 doubloons per week so I can play in port battles and it'd be good for the British nation because we need more people in PBs. If you don't give me that then you must not care about the British nation!
Absurd, isn't it? But that's essentially what is being asked when one says...
"Just get out there!" [in the red/PBs]
There are a variety of reasons why people refrain from PvP. To say "Just get out there" is to say that there are no valid reasons for not jumping in to PvP right now. Besides being another dismissal/invalidation fallacy to abruptly terminate the conversation, it is also a hasty generalisation, which will push away the very people you are trying to rally.
Instead, we must seek to understand the individual reasons that deter PvP participation and address those reasons. There are real barriers to PvP and to say "Just get out there" simply ignores that singularly relevant fact and precludes any measure to overcome or eliminate those barriers, keeping Brits from PvP and winning maps.
This leads to...
"People just don't wanna lose boats!"
Circle one or more of the following: confusing cause and effect, circumstantial ad hominem, circular reasoning, emotional appeal. Additionally, it oversimplifies the issue and I hope, after reading up to this point, we can all see that now.
Besides, who wants to lose boats? Losing boats isn't the issue but rather losing boats to something foolhardily is. Think of boats as currency (easy to do since they are interchangeable): is this port battle worth the entry fee? If the port battle looks fun and promising, then the entry fee will probably be worth it; however, if the port battle lacks fun-factor or looks dismal (one-sided loss, unpleasant team-mates, etc.), then why would any reasonable and prudent person pay to participate in that?
This is the state we're in; however, I wouldn't say this is the issue, but rather an effect of the issue, with the issue being preparedness. Effective PvP takes much preparation does it not? Successful PvP teams (in any game) aren't just thrown together and don't happen overnight (PUGs) but rather take a coordinated effort (training, practise, cohesion, Gestalt) over time. Brits are unprepared and this lack of preparedness is the chief barrier to PvP rather than the unwillingness to throw boats away on futile endeavours with reckless abandon.
The Fifth Habit
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood" will go a long way in respecting other Brits and earning respect from other Brits, leaving us respectable Brits to kick pompous French ass.
