ForumsDialogue is Action
Last Post Update: January 16
- 3+ Weeks of Credit: xwing37, Nicole, Carla Tortelli, Persephone
- 2 Weeks of Credit: ---
- 1 Week of Credit: abuzz, aplitstudent123. MangoMan
Posts during the midterm week will count as extra credit on whichever semester they impact most.
Defence of Authors
@username27 I missed this at first, and I'm not sure I agree with you. Motivations are tricky, but I think author death is a pretty key piece of the marginalia's goal. My current understanding is that they want to free up space for new ideas by removing the old one (new ideas about criticism commentary notwithstanding) so I don't think there's any peaceful resolution. You can't really get rid of an author's ideas without getting rid of them in the game world at least, so the two are diametrically opposed. If there was a satisfying compromise, I think it would've been resolved by now.
@persephone, I never really considered that the authors could be attacked more than once. I feel like this could make it even more tough on us because maybe the same people who attacked him will come back but bring many more marginalia allies. I think this is something that we have to be careful with, but thanks for letting us know.
I personally do not know if I were in the position to attack an author what I would do. I feel like I would ultimately be taken down and loose the points which I have worked hard to get. But I also don't really have much knowledge on attacking authors. I feel as if the people who have attacked authors thus far have not really provided that much information on how it went for them and whether it was easy or quite difficult.
@username27, I think this is a good point. Overall, I'm very confused with the Marginalia's motivation and how they go about achieving their goals. As for the point about morality, I would guess that the Marginalia believe that their cause is so important that they don't see killing the authors as a moral thing; rather just something that must be done to reach their goals.
@stella, I agree with the way you feel about the marginalia. I think them getting what they want done outweighs morality. And I think we need to start killing them off because we can't just let them kill us and the authors off. So I feel like it would be moral to kill them since they've started killing us off first and we have to do something about it.
So I'm back again, and ever since I've successfully defended Freud the first time, I've been protecting him every chapter since. Mr.Chisnell let me know that author CAN be attacked more than once, however I have seen no more attempts on Freuds life. This could be because of his lower level, or maybe the current assassins are unaware of this? I find the second possibility very unlikely but it's worth a thought. What do you guys think?
@persephone That is super interesting. I am glad you thought of protecting Freud again. For some reason I had pictured it as if an author was protected once, no one would come for the same one again. But, now that we know authors can be up for attack over and over again, the Guardians must be more prepared to protect authors that have already been targets. I am not sure if this would help or hurt the Marginalia because if they attack the authors again it could be. a predictable attack on a familiar author. However, if they are able to do it again and are successful, it will be a sneaky attack. I am interested to see how this turns out!
@aplitstudent123 The Marginalia definitely works in mysterious ways. I agree that as a guardian, the authors that make the most impact on literature as a whole must be protected. We must ensure that The Marginalia aren't able to completely take over and destroy literature itself. Freud is a very important author to the Guardian's cause, so it's a very beneficial thing that he was protected. The Marginalia sometimes put their goals above morality at all costs, which is not the way us Guardians should function for the sake of literature itself.
@persephone The Marginalia don't have any form of a coordinated attack plan so I wouldn't sweat it, to be honest. Chisnell wants us to get more organized which I kind of agree with since it makes life easier when choosing who defends who. Maybe it's worth it to start using the provided space in Canvas to start a discussion?
@delphine I think the idea of keeping our morality stable is a good one. The Marginalia almost seem to be impulsive with their actions, acting before considering their morals or principles. Or is it maybe that they are willing to sacrifice their morals for the cause? It's an interesting topic to tackle in regards with literature and defending the authors. I think as Guardians, morality must stay stable in order to think better than the Marginalia.
@octavia - I agree with you. I think that a stable morality will be what separates the Guardians from the Marginalia. As you say their actions are almost impulsive in attempting to kill canon authors. I think maybe they might just be willing to sacrifice their morality for their cause because it is just that important to them. I feel like the impulsivity might not apply here because I don't think people would just randomly kill off authors if they weren't serious about it.
@delphine I think so too. When you mentioned..
The Marginalia sometimes put their goals above morality at all costs, which is not the way us Guardians should function for the sake of literature itself.
it made me think more about the reasons behind each group's actions. This might be more of my opinion, but I think of the Guardians as defending knowledge and literature and the Marginalia wanting to eliminate knowledge. But, this leads me to think why? What motivates the Marginalia? It is common to want to learn and protect that, but why destroy it? I don't know if this is something that will be important to the game but I do wonder the reasoning behind it.
@xwing37, as you mentioned we have pretty similar thinking on this subject. But I think we walk a dangerous line when we start calling any killing moral. Rather than us having a moral responsibility to kill the Marginalia, I feel that we have a moral responsibility to protect the authors. Unfortunately, the only way that we can effectively do this is by killing the Marginalia.
@stella I see what you're saying, but if defending the authors is truly the moral move, we have to kill the Marginalia. I wonder how everyone else feels about this. Does killing for the good of the cause still render us moral? Or like stella's point, is any killing immediately immoral, regardless of the purpose or cause? Something to think about...
@delphine, at first I thought that any killing is immoral. But after some thought I've realized that we're killing them in self defense. While I don't like the idea of killing other players there isn't much to do then to fight back. We could be moral about it, but that would ultimately mean that they would have the upper hand. So I've been thinking about it as self defense.
- Only Substantive Posts earn credit.
- Five posts/week earn 100% for that week.
- Deadlines are Fridays at 11:59 pm.
- Any single week can earn up to 150%:
- Six posts = 120%
- Seven posts = 140%
- Eight posts = 150%
- Nine posts = 150%, etc.
- One successful podcast replaces 5 posts.
- Are usually several thoughtful sentences in length:
- Demonstrate that reading was done or a concept is understood
- Might quote text
- Express a thoughtful idea about that concept/reading
- May be questions, but if so, also speculations
- Demonstrate that reading was done or a concept is understood
- Are constructive and productive to the discussion
- Are supportive of other members and their ideas
- May/should challenge/provoke/take risks in thinking