The Game (315)

[the old briar pipe]

And since when is gearing up your army an act of aggression?

Eh. Since WWII, at least. Many countries are understandably nervous at buildups on their borders. Then again, Geldar's tech was a kind of buildup, too, so it's also understandable that John would also be nervous.

Rodney focused on technology, John focused on military. They both had their own areas of focus and neither initially intended for them to be aggressive.

Hm. Sort of? It's the setup of the 'Game', or more accurately, the Earth-style interpretation of that setup as competitive that almost led to war. It wasn't one man or the other - it was their entire approach to each other. By assuming they were in a competition, they took a bunch of peaceful villages and catapulted them into Europe in the late middle ages, yay.

I am just baffled why you'll excuse Rodney with so many assumptions, but won't grant the same absolution to John.

This is where I can agree whole-heartedly. The excusing of Rodney (or John) sounds bizarre next to the lambasting of John (or Rodney), when they both did what they did in order to win.

Though perhaps John suffered from less sympathetic screen-time. After all, he didn't have a pretty lady crying over him turning out to be 'just a man'.

Guess, they will be playing Chess in their spare time for about the next x-illion years!

Ahaha, right. Can't wait to see what trouble they'll stumble into next.

[2ndgenerationalteran]

i wonder if there are any lone civilizations, being wier clears them would it be in the best interest to advance them technilogically, prematurely but eventually in time it may help us gain allies

[LoveConquers]

Eh. Since WWII, at least. Many countries are understandably nervous at buildups on their borders. Then again, Geldar's tech was a kind of buildup, too, so it's also understandable that John would also be nervous.



Hm. Sort of? It's the setup of the 'Game', or more accurately, the Earth-style interpretation of that setup as competitive that almost led to war. It wasn't one man or the other - it was their entire approach to each other. By assuming they were in a competition, they took a bunch of peaceful villages and catapulted them into Europe in the late middle ages, yay.



This is where I can agree whole-heartedly. The excusing of Rodney (or John) sounds bizarre next to the lambasting of John (or Rodney), when they both did what they did in order to win.

Though perhaps John suffered from less sympathetic screen-time. After all, he didn't have a pretty lady crying over him turning out to be 'just a man'.



Ahaha, right. Can't wait to see what trouble they'll stumble into next.

You're asuming deployment, I am assuming recruitment. All we know is that John encouraged him to build up his army. There was never anything said about that army building up at the border. If that was the case, then yes, I wholeheartedly agree neighboring borders would of course be nervous. And that would go back way further than just WWII.

And I agree with your comments on their intentions in the context of the game. The villages were already set in the "middle ages" if you will, they did not take them there. Rodney built them up and John left there where they were at. John's reaction to Rodney's moves as being "cheating" implies that it was against the game to advance them beyond their current means. We do not know however if that was really the "rules" or just John's interpretation of them.
They each had their individual focus goals on where to take their people. Rodney's focus was again on technology and John's was on military. Which then led to the inevitable tensions prone from such competitive behavior as you said.

I too can't wait to see what they stumble into next.

[LoveConquers]

I kind of agree with the comment about them being cartoonish, but then I also have witnessed pacifists play video games, so I think it was fairly accurate. Human behaviour in general leads us all to think that we know better than anybody else and this kind of system really played into that. Even when Radek and Lorne knew it wasn't a game anymore, they were still convinced that if only the other guy would do things their way, everything would be fine.

I love how you said this! Excellent observation of human nature. In this episode, we saw all our heroes become fallible.

[Luz]

The excusing of Rodney (or John) sounds bizarre next to the lambasting of John (or Rodney), when they both did what they did in order to win.

Yeah, plus they thought it was a game, granted I haven't played a video game since back when I was ten and pong was still hot, but isn't the purpose of video games to win?, so I don't blame Rodney for trying to gain a little advantage (I don't consider what he did was cheating), and I don't blame John for trying not to be left behind. Each one tried to use their assets to move forward in the game, science for Rodney, military strategies for Sheppard.

Though perhaps John suffered from less sympathetic screen-time. After all, he didn't have a pretty lady crying over him turning out to be 'just a man'.

Sheppard doesn't need no pretty lady to gain my sympathy, I'm actually glad that Nola was on Rodney's side, I shudder to think of the attacks poor Sheppard would have suffered if Nola had been the leader of his village.

[ShoDar]

I love how you said this! Excellent observation of human nature. In this episode, we saw all our heroes become fallible.

lol, I think we knew Rodney was fallible already! which may have been the point of showing Zalenka and Lorne...it wasn't just the Rodney/John competitiveness/friendship/flirting going on.

I once knew somebody who had done one of those mock UN things in school. Apparently they tried to be serious about it and did research and everything ...and nearly ended up blowing up their "world"



Secondary thought: anybody else noticing that in the last few episodes, Rodney is spending quite a bit of time with Ronon? We see him with John a lot and now Ronon but hardly ever Teyla unless they're all there as a team.

[LoveConquers]

lol, I think we knew Rodney was fallible already! .

LOL! Too true...

[Nolamom]

I'm actually glad that Nola was on Rodney's side, I shudder to think of the attacks poor Sheppard would have suffered if Nola had been the leader of his village.

Hehehe...just a tad bloodthirsty there at the point of war (don't mess with a gal named Nola)
Nola

[Arlessiar]

Teyla asked if they had ever had troubles with the wraith, and Nola told them that they'd attacked periodically, culled them, destroyed the village and the survivors rebuilt.

Someone, I believe it was Teyla, did ask them about the wraith, and their reponse was that they had been culled from time to time, but rebuilt after each time.

Thanks! I already suspected that I missed this because I couldn't imagine that TPTB would forget about this while writing the show (although, who knows... ). Sometimes I don't get everything they say on the show (foreign language) and I didn't have time to read a transcript yet.

Bye, A.

[FallenAngelII]

As John said. Rodney didn't negotiate jack. He gave a list of demands and offered something John didn't need in return. Rodney cheated. It was a GAME. When it became real they were all affected by it.

John didn't do anything wrong. He didn't start any war. But he would have been within his right too, in the GAME, after all the cheating Rodney did. Too bad Rodney couldn't have played the game fairly.

The minute Rodney started cheating, John had the right to do what he did and he did it without cheating. In the GAME. :hakes head::

Rodney gave his people steam engines, bikes and other stuff to make their lives easier and John had the right to start a war?! What kind of logic is that?!

In my opinion, you're making a lot of assumptions here. Rodney's act of aggression was to do more than steal from another country, which in and of itself is pretty bad. He ordered the drilling of the tunnel two weeks ago and at the point they learn it's not just a game, they are three miles into John's country. You are saying that if a suspect enemy is on your homesoil, you would not find that an act of agression? You would stay at the negotiating table while they knowingly proceeded and continue to proceed to drill, to invade, to steal, while refusing to negotiate beyond their own list of demands? The stall in negotiatons goes both ways. You would continue to sit at the table anyway while you're in process of being invaded?

And because John's country was not currently using their coal, it's ok to steal it? The second half of your statement is an assumption. We do not know if John refused to negotiate over coal. All we do know is that Rodney's one and only attempt to negotiate was to send over a list of demands. We can maybe assume coal was one of those demands. We do know he offered nothing but beans in return. We do know he refused to give John wood. Why on earth would John give his coal when he cannot get the things he actually needs in return? And when the negotating stalled, Rodney invaded. Yet you expect John to still stay at that table.


And since when is gearing up your army an act of aggression? Rodney focused on technology, John focused on military. They both had their own areas of focus and neither initially intended for them to be aggressive. So again, you're saying that for a country to be well prepared is an act of aggression? You're assuming it was a reactive instead of a defensive move? Again, all I see is another assumption. You'll assume it might not have been against the rules for Rondey to give technology beyond their development, but it was not ok for John to build up militarily with means appropriate for that time?

I am not saying you dislike John. Nothing of the sort. I am just baffled why you'll excuse Rodney with so many assumptions, but won't grant the same absolution to John.

It sounded a lot to me like John's gearing up was in response to Rodney's cheating. He said so himself.

All paths lead to war in an RTS. Even the ones that supposedly offer the other routes.
And I dont even know why there needs to be blame laid? They were playing a game. Like I said, you'll end up attacking the other player at some point during an RTS anyway. No one is to blame for causing the war, because war is what you do in games.

The thing here is that while John might've been playing it like an RTS, Rodney was playing it like The Sims 2.

[LoveConquers]

Rodney gave his people steam engines, bikes and other stuff to make their lives easier and John had the right to start a war?! What kind of logic is that?!


It sounded a lot to me like John's gearing up was in response to Rodney's cheating. He said so himself.


The thing here is that while John might've been playing it like an RTS, Rodney was playing it like The Sims 2.

Why do you keep saying that John started the war? What are you basing this upon? I respect that you would have your own opinion as to their individual motives and that you feel Rodney's technological focus was more noble than John's military focus, but it is purely speculative and is seemingly against the little that is known from this episode.

Watch the jumper scene again in the beginning. The dialogue and thus the facts state that they first negotiated, Rodney with his "list of demands" and trade off of a "whole crop of beans" and John asking for lumber. Rodney counters he wouldn't give it because John wanted to use it to build defensive fortifications and that John had doubled his army. John counters he only did so after Rodney started cheating (as you said) and that he is not the only one building his army. Rodney then counters that he only did so to protect his country from John.
The dialogue shows that each was reactive after the other, each claiming to be defensive, not offensive. But the trigger for it all was the cheating.

You keep saying that Rodney's cheating was harmless because it was only technology. Yet his technology is what allowed his people to build a bomb before their time. You said Rodney did not knowinglly give them a bomb, they figured it out themselves. This is correct. But it does not negate the point that Rodney's cheating led to the bomb and led to the digging of coal and the invasion of John's country. Rodney said he did all this defensively, John said he did his actions defensively. Rodney's people invaded. Rodney's people built the bomb. And Rodney's people attacked first. Against Rodney's will. So yes, in this aspect, I agree with you, he had good intentions. But it does not take away the ramifications of his actions. In this way, his cheating, regardless of intentions, was far from harmless.

John built up his army and wanted lumber for defense. He said so himself. That is the only fact that is known. Absolutely nowhere does it indicate that John started a war. Every indication is in fact that he responded defensively, after trade negotiations stalled. The facts also show his army did not counter-attack until after Rodney's had invaded. The facts show that Rodney's army made the first move, upon Rodney's order while he still thought it was a game.

Again, I ask, where do you get "John started a war" from any of these facts? The argument that Rodney's intentions with his technology was for good is not complete. It did some good ("team engines, bikes and other stuff to make their lives easier"), but you are ignoring the damage it caused as well. There was a dark side to that technology as they so painfully learned.

In the same way, the argument that "John geared up in response to Rodney's cheating" also does not support your statement that "John started a war." Even if we for a moment assume it was offensive deployment and not defensive recruitment, as the dialogue suggests, it still does not mean he started the war. Even if he had been preparing for one, the facts show that Rodney's people are the ones that attacked first, not John's. And they attacked not because they feared the large army perse, but firstly because they wanted his coal and when they couldn't negotiate for it, they stole it. Their reasoning? They needed the coal to continue their advancement for defense. Yet they moved offensively. How is this any different then John building up an army for defense? And he did not move offensively.

Both had good intentions, but the lure of greater technology before they were ready and before they fully understood it led to the eventual moral downfall of Rodney's people (ie, stealing and invading). It was never Rodney's intention, but yet it happened. The team had to show them with a final mass simulation just how dangerous that technology can be before they finally agreed to negotiate again. It was ultimately that premature access to technology and the desire for more by people not yet ready or able to understand the causality that led to the crossover from tensions to war.

[FallenAngelII]

Why do you keep saying that John started the war?

I said John made a lot of actions that eventually lead to the war.

The guy I was quoting in my last post claimed Rodney's cheating gave John all the right to start a war.

I shall now ignore everything you said past this sentence because you didn't even bother to read through the quote in my last post (and apparentely you didn't read his original post, either).

[LoveConquers]

I said John made a lot of actions that eventually lead to the war.

The guy I was quoting in my last post claimed Rodney's cheating gave John all the right to start a war.

I shall now ignore everything you said past this sentence because you didn't even bother to read through the quote in my last post (and apparentely you didn't read his original post, either).

Yes, the quote was from your original statement that "It was that [John's] preparation that inevitably lead to war." Ie, the person was summarizing your statement that John's actions started a war. If this is in fact not what you are trying to say, then if I may suggest, you might want to clarify your earlier statements as more than one person has taken them that way.

And ignoring my quoting of facts does not help your argument any.

Please understand, I am simply trying to understand your viewpoint.

[FallenAngelII]

Yes, the quote was from your original statement that "It was that [John's] preparation that inevitably lead to war." Ie, the person was summarizing your statement that John's actions started a war. If this is in fact not what you are trying to say, then if I may suggest, you might want to clarify your earlier statements as more than one person has taken them that way.

And ignoring my quoting of facts does not help your argument any.

Please understand, I am simply trying to understand your viewpoint.

One of the posts I quoted (and replied to, the reply being what you replied to) said:

"John didn't do anything wrong. He didn't start any war. But he would have been within his right too, in the GAME, after all the cheating Rodney did."

Which was why I replied with:
"Rodney gave his people steam engines, bikes and other stuff to make their lives easier and John had the right to start a war."

When replying to people who are replying to quotes, I suggest you actually read the quotes in the future.

If you want to understand my viewpoint, backtrack at least one page and read through my posts. I shouldn't have to repeat myself every time someone new enters.

I've never said John started the war. I've said that a lot of John's actions built up to be the brunt of the actions that lead to the war. He didn't do them intentionally. But he did them nonetheless.

[LoveConquers]

One of the posts I quoted (and replied to, the reply being what you replied to) said:

"John didn't do anything wrong. He didn't start any war. But he would have been within his right too, in the GAME, after all the cheating Rodney did."

Which was why I replied with:
"Rodney gave his people steam engines, bikes and other stuff to make their lives easier and John had the right to start a war."

When replying to people who are replying to quotes, I suggest you actually read the quotes in the future.

If you want to understand my viewpoint, backtrack at least one page and read through my posts. I shouldn't have to repeat myself every time someone new enters.

I've never said John started the war. I've said that a lot of John's actions built up to be the brunt of the actions that lead to the war. He didn't do them intentionally. But he did them nonetheless.

I was asking if you wouldn't mind clarifying your viewpoint, not repeat it.

And this still brings us back to the question in my last post. You are correct, it would be more accurate to quote you saying that John's actions built up to be the brunt of the actions that led to the war. (IMO, a fine point from saying John started a war as that also in and of itself has nothing to do with intention). Regardless, I apologize for that. But it does not change my question. In my post which you did not do me the courtesy to read, I was asking how you came to the conclusion that it was John's actions and not Rodney's that led to this war and I backed my question and my own opinion with what I felt were facts from the episode. Again, I am just trying to understand what facts or dialogue led you to your conclusion that it was John's actions that led to the brunt of the actions that led to the war.

We are basically saying the exact same thing. That actions led to war, despite the good intentions of the doer. I am simply asking how you believe it was John and not Rodney's actions, as I believe, that brought about this outcome.