The meaning of "playing for fun"

Enjoying what we do is needed to be happy. A happy person enjoys or at least doesn't hate his day work, his family, his neighborhood, or change them for the better. Enjoying our gaming time should be as obvious as breathing. However the post isn't about that. It's about the declaration "I play for fun". Why would anyone declare something obvious? I mean there is no one who would claim the opposite (I play to feel bad), so this statement is redundant, meaningless at best.

Social people aren't good in explaining their own actions, as they aren't logical beings. But sometimes one comes up with something clear - and usually shocking. I find this gem when I suggested a way how the minerbumping crew could make serious impact on EVE: be #1 on EVE-kill on ISK destroyed (#1 ship kills is trivial, blow up the frig of your alt until you can't make yourself log in again). It would be surprisingly easy. I mean I alone destroyed 1/20 value of what TEST did and they are #3 on the toplist. A corp of 25 players like myself ganking in different places could be the #1 ISK destroyer. Again: a corp of 25 players could beat GSF, TEST, and PL. But instead of enthusiasm to make one of those stories of EVE, I found whining and the epic "we play for fun" nonsense from members. Then I got this: "Play for fun" is this: rejecting any form of metric that would allow you to be defeated. If you "play for fun" you can never lose as no one can claim that you are not having fun (assuming you aren't 12 and cry on some chat or forum). If you set a goal, any goal, you can fail to reach it. "Play for fun" is a complete lack of goals, therefore the theoretical impossibility to be defeated. Of course it works both ways: since you can't prove anyone that you are having fun, you can't be victorious either. "Play for fun" is removing victory and defeat from the game. Actually removing the game from the game, turning it into a Skinner box: press button, receive candy.

I'm not happy that James 315 yielded for the "play for fun" crowd instead of giving them a "step up or step out". Not only New Order failed to make an epic story that would be great for his CSM candidacy, but he aligned with the very spirit he is fighting against. "I mine because it's relaxing" is a miner bingo field. Cheap minerals allow low-cost "fun" PvP. He is trying to take away both, and it won't happen unless he can display a serious playerbase that will not quit EVE if it becomes risky or hard. Garth is damn right, the first victim of the changes championed by James would be "for fun" griefers and those who want to "farm tears" should not vote for James. James must understand that you can't have a "play for fun game" and a "game with consequences" at the same time.

While I stopped ganking (why should I make effort if no one else does) and express my disappointment here, I still support James 315 with my votes and posts. He is like Romney: not the brightest man, but fighting for the good cause, while others trying to make EVE even easier and "more accessible". I was beaten out of WoW by "accessible", so I'm ready to join with the Devil if he offers to stand against changing EVE into a "press any key, receive reward" game.


PS: don't miss the post for Monday. I found the "Jesus feature" EVE needs. No, it's not removing L4s. It's not a rebalance, it's not taking away anything from anyone. It's adding a feature. Why am I sure that it would make a difference? Because it's already working! See you on Monday!