Several posters have iterated the idea that my suggested quit-rule would have no effect, it would be meaningless or futile etc. I have several times argued against their view (as can easily be seen if one reads my posts) but the iterators just come back with their blank statements. Thus occurs a conversation of the type
A-B-C-B-C-B-C etc
where I am then one arguing A and then responding with C to B while the iterators are the B-guys.
While similar structures may be of some interest for students of the theoretical basis of music (where for example a rondo has the structure A-B-A-C-A-D etc) it is of little interest for those interested in reaching the truth by an intellectual process of exchanging arguments.
In case you want to know what A is, then read post 1. The core of that was (from post 1)
Daniel A said:
Thus the problem is really not the quit-phenomenon as such, No, the root of the problem is the discrepancy in what we believe justifies a quit.
I believe people allow themselves to quit far to easy. But other people have another opinion.
....
The solution to the bad quit problem therefore appears to be easy, just
1. In post 1 of the game thread, before the game starts, the GM writes down what constitutes a justified quit. If you do not accept that, then do not enter the game in the first place.
In case you want an example of the B-argument I give you this (post 89)
ryoken69 said:
Daniel, YOU are the one who is not reading. Multiple people have made the argument several times that NO ONE JOINS A GAME EXPECTING TO QUIT thus a rule against quitting will not pre-select non-quitters any more than a sign "No Vomiting" is going to stop that practice either. People dont vomit or quit because they planned to ahead of time.
And your logic requires that people who plan on quitting see this rule and go, "Gee, I might quit so I wont join". No one is going to do that. It is just stupid to think so.
In case you want an example of the type C-post I give you this (post 35)
Daniel A said:
I believe that deep inside almost all people are honest. Thus as I wrote the important thing is to remove any difference in opinion of the players in a campaign, to make sure they agree what is acceptable reasons to quit, and what is not. I believe many quits would never have occurred if this had been the case.
….
In short: my proposal has very little to do with forcing people to stay in the campaign, and very much more with getting the right crowd from start. If they understand from start that certain quits are not allowed some of them will not join the campaign.
….
I believe much of the problem is that our views on what justifies a quit differs, and easy-going quitters can have their own game as far as I am concerned.
I will therefore leave this apparently futile exercise consisting of me responding C to B and getting B back in my face instead of getting a D-response.
Instead I will perform a quiz. It is a short quiz. Just three questions.
In case your views on quits resembles my own I believe it may enhance your experience from the quiz if you try and get into Ryoken’s or Hive’s clothes.
QUIZ
Imagine you are about to enter a campaign and that you are the type of player that now and then quits a game because e.g. you fail in your initial aims in the game or that you believe that after 200 years of game play one or two nations has grown so big they dominate the games and the rest of you have no chance of “winning” the game (or something similar, you get the idea).
Now further imagine that when you read post 1 of the game thread for this new game you find a quit-rule. A restrictive one, one that clearly tells you that the kind of reasons you have had for quits in the past is not acceptable in this particular campaign.
And now the first question
1: What will you do?
A. Accept the existing quit-rule (just as you accept any rule, such a no-map-trading rule) or refrain from joining the campaign; if either of these two alternatives fits your choice then choose A
or
B. Don’t give a shit about the rule, just play as usual, quitting if you believe you meet your
own standards for quitting
In both alternatives the optional variant of you first making an unsuccessful attempt of persuading the GM of your own opinion’s superiority is included. The two alternatives A and B still are the ones you finally have to face. If your attempt of persuading the GM is successful you will obviously not end up in this situation where you have to make a choice with moral implications, and thus we can leave that aside.
And now question number 2.
2. What will Ryoken answer?
A) He will answer A. Thereby revealing that he is an honest civilised man – such a man I referred to in post 35 – but at the same time admitting that his main point (the B argument) in this discussion was wrong.
B) He will answer B. Thereby revealing that he is crook.
C) He will not answer at all. Thereby revealing he is a coward.
D) He will try to confuse the issue. Similar to what he did concerning the concept of defeatism where he wrote an essay about things most of which most of us probably already knew, instead of just admitting he was wrong when he equated defeatism with cowardice. Thereby revealing that he has a brilliant future in politics.
And finally question number 3:
3. What will Hive answer?
A) He will answer A . Thereby revealing that he is an honest civilised man but at the same time admitting that his main point (the B argument) in this discussion was wrong.
B) He will answer B. Thereby revealing that he is crook.
C) He will not answer at all. Thereby revealing he is a coward.
D) He will try to confuse the issue. À la Ryoken. Thereby revealing that he has a brilliant future in politics.
