EVE General Discussion

Judging by the looks of your avatars, I'd say Monk's looks more thoughtful, actually.

Yes, my intent in the statement was that people could self select early on.I am glad to hear this was successful in your case. What is more accurate is that the work does not use quantitative data such as occurrences of words within the publicly available documents, or numerical ISK values associated with the activity, etc. The document does not attempt to generate any sort of statistical significance and for people who prioritize that as a way of knowing it might not be satisfying. For someone interested, this work could be done and would be fascinating to see, particularly with regard to comparing various narratives and understanding the quantifiable effects if those, unintended consequences and such. I was not asked to do that by my client. The work does treat situated ideographic content as a type of data. It is not framed in an objectivist view of reality as being exhaustive. For people who admit to other methods of inquiry the work might occur differently.

The EVE community it seems to me is very skilled and fervent around a certain understanding of data, analytics and infomatics/infographics, about which I also have some passion. The systems thinking frame lightly touched on in the article includes these and takes a whack at expanding beyond to tangentially consider a different dimension of meta-gaming, narrative, emergence and generative game play.



I am not one of the many alts of anyone, though I have now created and am messing about with some alts, as I often do. In all honesty it is to early for me to say who is my main. It is often the case that my first character in a game is exploratory and that I implement what I am able to learn in subsequent iterations.

My client was specifically interested in how this narrative would look 'through my conceptual framework' based on my consideration of the NO. Thank you for the kind comments.


I disagree with your assessment of the NO endeavor and rhetoric. I feel that they would contend that they are always in the process of revealing spades as such. Your reflection about my own process is completely accurate as the nature of 'spades' is rarely self evident, binary or one dimensional to me. Sadly, my writing reflects this neurotic character flaw. In fact, it would be very helpful to me if you could describe something of your own process regarding spade identification.


I feel it is often the case that we are writing about ourselves, including your statements above. Another way of saying this is that our interpretation of really anything is based on the mental models we hold and how they create an interpretive lens that informs the re-presentational activity in which we are constantly and exhaustively involved. The active question for me is about the extent to which that can be made transparent and interacted with consciously, while still remaining functional. I have done my best to be quite (boringly) transparent about the frameworks employed. That is to say, I am not unaware of the dilemma you are suggesting and have done my best to make that transparent and take responsibility in the matter.

In my own experience I am not stating a case. I am offering an analytic interpretation which posits neither objective truth value nor any sort of external authorization, as was requested by my client. I had hoped to make something about this evident by introducing the context of critical thinking and systems thinking as approaches, since they tend to share these deconstructive qualities.

Your statement about 'mind control' seems highly relevant to me. To what extent does any scam involve this? What about actions such as Burn Jita? From a systems thinking perspective the most 'leveraged' interventions one can make in a system are at the level of mental models and paradigms. How does that relate to the question of meta gaming and emergence? This is relevant for me to the question I have posed framing the inquiry, namely: 'what does it mean to be free in the EVErse?' Can you see how the question of 'mind control' might be relevant to such a question?

Though I would be more interested in you unfolding something about what is suggested about the narrative that you see as me having a position, I would be equally interested to read what you feel I have said about myself, recognizing of course that in the process you are subject to the same assertion you are making about writing. I find this to be an interesting collection of assertions about the nature of 'self' and writing.

Thank you for the considered and thoughtful responses and having labored through the document itself, for better or worse.

I will say that for the most part people do not seem to have engaged either the framework employed nor the particulars of what is offered beyond qualitative gestures of assessment... Mostly sort of a agree/disagree disposition without much transparency about the reasoning or even much about with what you might imagine yourself to be agreeing or disagreeing about. I don't need anything else to happen. Just offering a perspective.

Hi- thank you for this question. Interestingly I do not wish to assert any sort of authorization about what is written, and the terms of my contract do not require this. I also cannot exactly make the assertions you have about 'any researcher or academic' since I have not actually looked into the matter sufficiently. The last post in which I was asked for citations did not go too well. I provided a fairly small list of such. It seems to offend people for some reason.

Your position, as I understand it, is that only statistical research constitutes research. Because I am very aware of the prevalence of this position, particularly in Anglo-American culture, I have tried to be explicit about the methodologies used and the implications of those, without writing a treatise on the methodologies themselves. I was contracted to look at the narrative. No call for citations and such was asked. It is analytic from within the frameworks suggested. I would categorize your view as objectivist, in so far as I can make it out. There are two primary forms of this: rationalism and empiricism. I would guess you are methodologically speaking, an empiricist, but its just a guess. Both methods are also often reductionist. I cannot tell whether or not that is the case for you from what you have offered.

As a side note, surprising as it may seem, I am in fact published in a variety of academic journals on topics that have to do with the very question you are raising. I have also published on the nature and implications of the objectivist endeavor and the planetary consequences of that as expressed in the late stage industrial era. Really what is more interesting is that I actively practice in the world, in large scale systems in ways that produce quantifiable change and such things as innovation, etc. Amusingly, I am also published on the assertion of (false) authority that arises from our often artificial credentialing and publishing practices and the consequences of that.

It would be interesting to note whether not such assertions on my part alter the context in which you read the offering, such as it is. They happen to be true, but what difference would that really make, in your opinion. From my view it reduces it to mere argument from authority. The next step in that progression would be to digress to ad hominem attacks, as we have already seen in this thread.

Please consider the context of inquiry in which the work is offered, namely: 'what does it mean to be 'free' in the EVErse?' Though statistical significance might inform one's understanding of such a question, it is likely insufficient for suggesting answers to the question (of which there are probably many). A fully reductionist view of the question might express it as a number. e.g. If I had xISK I would then be free. Do you hold this to be the case? It seems to me some people hold a model that resembles this. For me in the best case, ISK would be a remote proxy value indicating the capacity to generate or obtain the ISK as an indicator of some model of freedom. The statistically significant indicator the becomes a reflective surface that might inform practice. With respect to something like freedom (or narrative) is the measure a thing in itself? Is it possible for someone with no ISK to be free is such a model?

I will say, that from a systems thinking point of view, numbers are pretty much the lowest leveraged interventions, though still quite important. Should you wish I can write something about how and why this is considered to be the case and how that might apply to interventions in the sense of meta gaming and emergent play. My fees it turns out, are quite modest.

I would ask you to say a bit more about 'facts' and credibility. It is often confusing for me, I admit, and you seem to have some real clarity in the matter. Are you familiar with 'confirmation bias'?

Personally I don't find the argument about 'toshness' to be particularly fruitful. More of a distraction really. And my client is apparently very satisfied with the work making it a successful contract in that way. Anything else, positive or negative is icing... I do like icing.

As I point out in the narrative analysis I feel that much emergent play is based on the interaction with and revelation of 'mental models'. I also feel that the mental models we hold as we enter and engage together in 'gaming' influence the nature and quality of such emergent play and even our perception of what is emergent or not. Therefore asking about these models is also asking about the nature of emergent play. The particular enacted narratives are a means of exploring and revealing that.

If it is not yet clear I am asking: 'what does it mean to be free in the EVErse?' My working assumption is that everyone I encounter has an actively working model of this for themselves, consciously or otherwise. The question and approach to the question may be evocative for some and for others, not so much.

This is very elegant. Thank you.

I would only add that the methodologies superficially offered might be of some use outside of the context of the specific narrative and that there are some basic concepts embedded there.

Also, because this is so elegant I wonder, in relationship to the context for the inquiry and the relationship that this might have to the generation and practice of such emergent narrative, do you have insights? Specifically: 'what does it mean to be free in the EVErse?' How does that influence emergent game play and the generation of such narratives, if at all? Do you have any insight into this? I feel you might.

Well, what does it mean to be free at all? The idea that things can even be free is itself a paradigm. A more refined version of that freedom-paradigm might not be that we can live free (i.e. outside of paradigms, as God), but might be instead that we can create and/or choose which paradigm to live in.

Whether they know it or not, the Belligerent Undesirables are attempting to free "carebears" from their paradigm, but we might also say that "carebears" are attempting to free Belligerent Undesirables from THEIR paradigm by resisting, or are at least attempting to remain free, themselves. Generalizing this dynamic, we have the very concept of a "game". Player 1 representing paradigm 1 versus player 2 representing paradigm 2.

The winning entity is the one that accomplishes some arbitrary goal, like blowing up an internet spaceship, but when that winning player or group abandons their paradigm to do that or has no narrative in mind to begin with, I would say that that is the beginning of emergent, "meta-gaming". Afterall, a game is not just WHAT you do, like taking a ball to a region of the field, but also the narrative that we impose on events that got the ball there.

In EVE, there are many ways to get the ball into the endzone and few rules imposed by the game itself. So, each player has more freedom to write/interpret the story as they see fit. One may see himself as a patient and cunning AWOXer, while someone else may see them as a vindictive, cheating son-of-a-*****. Understanding that players have these stories in their head about how the world works, finding blindspots that are caused by these stories, this is the realm of the metagamer.

The problem is that if we are too free-form in our interpretation of events, if we are too free, then what we are doing ceases to be a game at all, and just becomes the activity of choosing paradigms. If we are denying a miner the ability to mine in order to extort ISK from him, that is a game. If we are bumping a miner to challenge his belief that safety (high sec) equates to autonomy (the right to mine) or ownership (exclusive use of his mining barge and/or choice of how it is used), we could view that as a game with the goal of changing someone's world view or as a humane act of forced enlightenment or as an act of abuse. The latter two might not be games at all.

To be in a "game" is to be constrained to only certain actions, to not be free, so the question then has to be: Is EVE Online a game?

Without requoting your post, I will say that I do live in the waters of your various assertions, proposed methodologies and such. One of the paradoxes involved in this is that from the objectivists point of view, questions about and alternatives to the objectivist endeavor are variously seen as a threat, challenge to authority/validity etc. and related to in a binary fashion. I train scientists, academics, officers of the kind of agency to which you refer in these very things. I used to do this sort of thing coupled with active practice in very large corporations. My focus has shifted in the past decade. It is difficult. Impossible in my experience through the written word alone as it is quite necessary to verify things for oneself, in an immediate and situated manner. This takes some years to accomplish for oneself and longer if considered at the level of institutions, national strategies and such, as I am sure you are aware.

In essence you are now indulging in the ad hominem at this point, not having read the article, but feeling quite free to comment on it. Or as you yourself have said, resorting to a kind of ad hominem (edit: by wishing to talk about me, in caps). I would rather not do that together. it almost never works out well. You have made some very generalized assertions and now feel attacked for some reason and wish to defend those. I am sorry I got your hackles up. Honestly I assumed you had considered the simple methodologies, in the context of the question posed and were responding in an informed way based on that. In fact, I am not laying some claim to credibility at all. Why would I want to do that? I am mot trying to persuade you or anyone else of anything. Why would I want to do that? I feel I try to make these things very clear as well. Apologies if I have somehow failed to do so.

The dilemma faced by most 'academics' today is the need to 'generalize' their findings, usually according to some socialized and inherited model of unexamined authorization. All of this is embedded in their RPT process as you probably know. This has a certain utility, but personally I do not suffer from the need for this. Rather, I would be more interested to know how you would approach the inquiry itself, which thus far you have only tangentially engaged. I do understand the methodologies you have mentioned and am familiar with some of that work, perhaps even your own. What conclusions have you drawn? How is it for you? I really have very little interest in reducing such an inquiry to a right/wrong disputation, as I don't find that particularly useful for actually engaging in inquiry. It is a hard question and you have talked around it a bit. My paper, such as it is, explores it somewhat directly. I am in interested in the question: 'what does it mean to be free in the EVErse'? Perhaps this is evocative for you or maybe not. Maybe you have something to offer on the matter, maybe not. The second level of inquiry is how such a question informs the actual narrative generation and such. I believe models are present, though perhaps not articulated. I have thus far tried to articulate two.

I did not say numbers are not important. I said, numbers are considered the lowest form of systemic intervention, which is true. I could lay out models of this, but truly, I am not attacking numbers, you or some particular methodology you might prioritize. Again, why would I, or anyone, really have any interest in that? I also suggested that understanding the nature of systemic interventions might be of relevance to understanding something about meta gaming for some people. For you maybe, maybe not.

Also, to be very, very clear I did not assert the paper was scientific in any way. You assumed something about that and then very amusingly criticized it for not adhering to your assumptions. You have chosen to 'discredit' something according to your own unilateral system of accreditation, as is your right. Just please be clear about what you are doing. In fact, I would venture to say that a more careful and less reactionary reading of the paper and what I have written here might be seen to contain a certain deconstruction of the scientific endeavor and a contextualization of what was offered. Hard to see, I know. Such a deconstruction does not imply an attempt to negate or refute. It is not a debate. It is not binary by nature. Such efforts are often perceived in those ways when inhabiting certain sorts of models and assumptions, particularly in the absence of a an awareness of that act. The paper is in great part about that specific phenomena, a way of being able to see it happening and the consequences.

I have not said anything about feelings at all. And your attributions or conclusions about me, meant to strengthen your own, already preformed opinions and models have little resemblance to me as far as I can tell. This often happens in such conversations as people struggle to find some ground for communication. I typically relate to at this assertion and negation of other as a self defining act. Also dealt with in the paper. I apologize if I have contributed to that dynamic. It was not my intent. I forget how truly offensive this can be for some people. Again, something dealt with in the paper, however poorly.

Thank you for taking the time and effort to frame such an energetic and sincere response.

Excellent analysis, Xenuria.

I might also recommend this site: http://belligerentundesirables.wordpress.com/

There is a reddit AMA that is interesting as well, for those interested. There are also a bunch of you tube videos with live dialogue. I did not find anything on the Goon SA site, but hard to say. Of course the above sites also reveal a bunch of other names which can be searched here and on EVE live, and subsequently followed elsewhere on the net all of which might be of interest to anyone so moved.

The picture of the iceberg was neat. I could not find any other pictures, so I will comment based on what I understand this document to be about:

GLOBAL WARMING IS BAD!!!

Almost 5,000 words... That's like a major tertiary research project.

I would like to read but fear wasting my time on some internet person's mere opinion about something...