Boycotting community events

[Surly_Badger]

A thought experiment:

A child at the beach spends hours constructing a sand castle. It's a substantial effort and the child is proud of it and feels a sense of accomplishment. An adult walks by, and stomps on the child's sand castle, then explains "the game-play of beaches does not say I cannot do this. in fact, a child should expect that an adult might do this."

Did the adult do something wrong?


I argue that the adult, by unilaterally deciding to act without consulting the child, committed several wrongs. Firstly, the adult probably did not ask the child "may I stomp on your sand-castle" because they knew the child would yell "NO!" and get upset. So, one wrong is that the adult probably suspected that the child would feel wronged in advance of acting which meant that the adult actually knew they were about to do something wrong, but did it anyway. Secondly, the adult wronged the child because the adult wasted the child's effort. Thirdly, the adult wronged the child because the adult removed the child's pride in the castle. Lastly, the adult wronged the child because the adults' action circumscribed the child's freedom: by acting unilaterally, the adult removed options from the child's world without the child having any recourse. The last of those wrongs is very complicated; it could be that the child is just unhappy because they wanted to watch the sea wash away the castle, but it could be that the child made the castle for a contest, or to show its mother.

This is not an academic point. Whenever someone unilaterally takes actions that interfere with someone else's purpose, they are potentially harming that person, and one must act carefully. This is a general principle and you'll notice that it applies to games as well as "real life" because at the level of time and effort, pride and accomplishment - games are real life. Someone has just as much of a right to feel a sense of accomplishment getting to Hutton Orbital as the child has to feel a sense of accomplishment over making a sand castle.

 

[Schmack]

A thought experiment:

A child at the beach spends hours constructing a sand castle. It's a substantial effort and the child is proud of it and feels a sense of accomplishment. An adult walks by, and stomps on the child's sand castle, then explains "the game-play of beaches does not say I cannot do this. in fact, a child should expect that an adult might do this."

Did the adult do something wrong?


I argue that the adult, by unilaterally deciding to act without consulting the child, committed several wrongs. Firstly, the adult probably did not ask the child "may I stomp on your sand-castle" because they knew the child would yell "NO!" and get upset. So, one wrong is that the adult probably suspected that the child would feel wronged in advance of acting which meant that the adult actually knew they were about to do something wrong, but did it anyway. Secondly, the adult wronged the child because the adult wasted the child's effort. Thirdly, the adult wronged the child because the adult removed the child's pride in the castle. Lastly, the adult wronged the child because the adults' action circumscribed the child's freedom: by acting unilaterally, the adult removed options from the child's world without the child having any recourse. The last of those wrongs is very complicated; it could be that the child is just unhappy because they wanted to watch the sea wash away the castle, but it could be that the child made the castle for a contest, or to show its mother.

This is not an academic point. Whenever someone unilaterally takes actions that interfere with someone else's purpose, they are potentially harming that person, and one must act carefully. This is a general principle and you'll notice that it applies to games as well as "real life" because at the level of time and effort, pride and accomplishment - games are real life. Someone has just as much of a right to feel a sense of accomplishment getting to Hutton Orbital as the child has to feel a sense of accomplishment over making a sand castle.

Is the name of the beach "Sandcastle: Dangerous" because if so, that's a poor name for a beach first of all and 2nd, never take a kid to a beach named anything "dangerous".

 

[CmdrZaratan]

You may check the post again, I've investigated the situation and provided additional information.

And I have responded. I must admit I've had a good experience with you so far on this, which I wasn't necessarily expecting.

Next time I encounter the code I will definitely try initiating a dialogue rather than just blindly panicking.

 

[Kazacy]

A thought experiment:

A child at the beach spends hours constructing a sand castle. It's a substantial effort and the child is proud of it and feels a sense of accomplishment. An adult walks by, and stomps on the child's sand castle, then explains "the game-play of beaches does not say I cannot do this. in fact, a child should expect that an adult might do this."

Did the adult do something wrong?


I argue that the adult, by unilaterally deciding to act without consulting the child, committed several wrongs. Firstly, the adult probably did not ask the child "may I stomp on your sand-castle" because they knew the child would yell "NO!" and get upset. So, one wrong is that the adult probably suspected that the child would feel wronged in advance of acting which meant that the adult actually knew they were about to do something wrong, but did it anyway. Secondly, the adult wronged the child because the adult wasted the child's effort. Thirdly, the adult wronged the child because the adult removed the child's pride in the castle. Lastly, the adult wronged the child because the adults' action circumscribed the child's freedom: by acting unilaterally, the adult removed options from the child's world without the child having any recourse. The last of those wrongs is very complicated; it could be that the child is just unhappy because they wanted to watch the sea wash away the castle, but it could be that the child made the castle for a contest, or to show its mother.

This is not an academic point. Whenever someone unilaterally takes actions that interfere with someone else's purpose, they are potentially harming that person, and one must act carefully. This is a general principle and you'll notice that it applies to games as well as "real life" because at the level of time and effort, pride and accomplishment - games are real life. Someone has just as much of a right to feel a sense of accomplishment getting to Hutton Orbital as the child has to feel a sense of accomplishment over making a sand castle.

First in your example should be two adults; i hope your not considering most of the people in this thread children's? Second without stakes and by stakes i mean the possibility to lose your work, what is the meaning of your work in a multiplayer game? It was said countless times before me: there is only one open server and if you try to nerf/close this server the people like me (i really love to destroy sand castles) where we go? You already have two servers and if you want to take this only open and free server from us, well in my opinion this is the real griefing.

 

[Apos]

A thought experiment:

A child at the beach spends hours constructing a sand castle. It's a substantial effort and the child is proud of it and feels a sense of accomplishment. An adult walks by, and stomps on the child's sand castle, then explains "the game-play of beaches does not say I cannot do this. in fact, a child should expect that an adult might do this."

Did the adult do something wrong?


I argue that the adult, by unilaterally deciding to act without consulting the child, committed several wrongs. Firstly, the adult probably did not ask the child "may I stomp on your sand-castle" because they knew the child would yell "NO!" and get upset. So, one wrong is that the adult probably suspected that the child would feel wronged in advance of acting which meant that the adult actually knew they were about to do something wrong, but did it anyway. Secondly, the adult wronged the child because the adult wasted the child's effort. Thirdly, the adult wronged the child because the adult removed the child's pride in the castle. Lastly, the adult wronged the child because the adults' action circumscribed the child's freedom: by acting unilaterally, the adult removed options from the child's world without the child having any recourse. The last of those wrongs is very complicated; it could be that the child is just unhappy because they wanted to watch the sea wash away the castle, but it could be that the child made the castle for a contest, or to show its mother.

This is not an academic point. Whenever someone unilaterally takes actions that interfere with someone else's purpose, they are potentially harming that person, and one must act carefully. This is a general principle and you'll notice that it applies to games as well as "real life" because at the level of time and effort, pride and accomplishment - games are real life. Someone has just as much of a right to feel a sense of accomplishment getting to Hutton Orbital as the child has to feel a sense of accomplishment over making a sand castle.

By your premise, are traders intellectually immature, since they are the "child" in this scenario?

There are plenty of actions which interfere with someone else's purpose. The whole game is based around them when it comes to supporting one of the major factions or an independent system.

Leesti has been recently flipped to an independent dictatorship. Do you know how distressing that is for an Alliance supporter? Should I go around saying that the first one to flip a system to a faction keeps it? That it should lock itself in that state? No.

What I do complain about is FD's complete disregard to the matter, who completely ignore the event and don't pay attention to me or anyone else trying to create a story around it. (and this is the second time they do this, even though the Lave cluster is REALLY important for the Alliance players) This is irrelevant to the players' actions responsible for this.

Just because a pirate's actions is not justified in the mainstream excuses of "I destroyed your castle because Aisling is cute and screw the Alliance" or "I work for Hudson and he don't like no communists in Leesti because 'dey took our jobs!" doesn't make it any less viable of a choice. In the end of the day, the whole game is about building and destroying sand castles.

 

[Ian Phillips]

Again, we are doing a blockade, we are not grieving, please do not confuse the two.

Bit of a defensive reaction there... Grieving wasn't even mentioned in the OP

 

[Surly_Badger]

I can say the same about you, but of course you wouldn't admit to it.

You can say it, but can you back it up?

You seem to be unable to separate the real life from the game.

I don't believe there is a separation. Games are part of real life; they are a subset of our lives. We spend our time playing games, just as we spend our time walking and eating or doing other hobbies. Is there a fundamental difference between a "game" and "flying a kite"? The question is the degree to which what we spend our time doing is tangible and important to us.

Obviously, for some people, hauling stuff to Hutton Orbital was worth the hours they spent doing it. It may be a "game" but those were real hours.

It's convenient, for some, to insist that there is a wall between reality and .. what? Game reality? But that denies the obvious fact that our game reality is part of real reality. We wouldn't play the game, otherwise!! We wouldn't play the game if we didn't get tangible satisfaction or pleasure in doing so. Which is why I think it ought to be obvious that if you're reducing someone's pleasure in-game you're just as much of a great big meanie as if you go smash someone's kite that they're flying. Yes, there are matters of degree; a kite might cost more to fix. But then we're just equivocating and ranking wrongs.

Please look in the mirror. Anyone can claim that anyone has BPD for being persistent and obstinate about their stand. You might as well call the majority of the judges, politicians and lawyers carriers of BPD. Ironically, I am studying to be the latter.

I know I am a borderline personality.

That is precisely why I think about this stuff so much.

 

[Surly_Badger]

By your premise, are traders intellectually immature, since they are the "child" in this scenario?

It's a thought experiment; I am not trying to map onto specific parts of game-play. The question I am trying to get at is to what degree we can say "don't do that" when someone interferes with someone else's purpose. I think it's important to understand the degree to which unilateral action is important in the scenario.

There are plenty of actions which interfere with someone else's purpose. The whole game is based around them when it comes to supporting one of the major factions or an independent system.

Yes, but ...
I don't think anyone complains at all if they go play CQC and get their ship blown up. That's because that is part of what they are expecting, and they are not going to feel intruded upon if someone shoots at them, when they are in an arena for shooting at people.
That's not quite the same as when someone feels they are in a cargo-hauling project, and instead get treated as a target in order to spice up someone else's game-fun at their expense.

Leesti has been recently flipped to an independent dictatorship. Do you know how distressing that is for an Alliance supporter? Should I go around saying that the first one to flip a system to a faction keeps it? That it should lock itself in that state? No.

One of the nice things FD did about powerplay was they made it possible for people to completely opt out of it. Again, it comes back to expectations. I suspect that if somehow powerplay gameplay intruded destructively onto people who were just minding their business - there would be complaints.

Just because a pirate's actions is not justified in the mainstream excuses of "I destroyed your castle because Aisling is cute and screw the Alliance" or "I work for Hudson and he don't like no communists in Leesti because 'dey took our jobs!" doesn't make it any less viable of a choice. In the end of the day, the whole game is about building and destroying sand castles.

You reveal your bias, when you basically fall back to asserting that having the power to act unilaterally means it is moral to do so. Every bully, ever, has said that.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I made no such assumption at all. Excuse me if you feel I did.

It can be argued either way.

Yes, I understand that. You appear to be under the mistaken impression that a "team" is not a group of individuals that are moral agents. Or are you claiming that being part of a collective means that people are no longer responsible for making choices?

You didn't seem to understand statement. If you read Paley William's critique on Utilitarianism and R.M. Hare's defense for Slavery you would understand what is being conveyed here.

I actually knew Hitch (though not well) and I suspect that his natural dislike of bullies and tyrants (except for when he was being a bully) would have extended to bullies in games, as well. But we can't know. And, since we can't know - maybe your threat to drag him out of the grave is both tasteless and an empty threat?

And, if you read for comprehension, I wasn't saying there was anything immoral about a video game blockade (although I will make that argument in a bit, below) I was saying that the individuals who were involved in the blockade made choices as moral agents and they do not have any reason to expect that they can simply dismiss the consequences of those choices because ... it's a game.

Now, the moral argument regarding the blockade: people participating in the CG invested hours of their lives - time that they cannot get back - in order to accomplish a goal. Their goal was not to "haul stuff to Hutton Orbital and get blown up" their goal was to "haul stuff to Hutton Orbital in pursuit of the community goal" When the pirates unilaterally decided to interfere with the players' goals, they were being unfair to those players; they were doing wrong. We can understand this with a simple thought-experiment: what would have happened if the pirates had asked the players "may I interfere with you?" The answer would have been "no" in most cases. Unilaterally involving yourself in someone else's existence in a negative way - whether in game or in real life - is annoying. It is wrong. Of course it is worse to actually blow someone up in actual reality. But that doesn't mean it's not still wrong in game.

The problem with you train of thought is that you are set on dismissing the effort of the pirates as non-equivalent of the traders, and that's the problem here. You are unable to surpass the mainstream moral that you've been riding on to make your judgments.

The question was whether there is valuable game-play. And I think you just acknowledged that there is not.
So, then what is valuable about interfering with the CG? The value appears to be causing suffering for other players. Is there another goal that you can explain?

Causing suffering for other players is not an objective it is a byproduct from the pirate's perspective. It is the product of a griever's objective. Distinguish the two.

It's not begging the question. See above. I spelled out the moral argument. Game mechanics permit you to waste someone's time and effort and ruin their fun. That does not make it right to do so.

Refer to the line above the line above.

Ah, the laws of physics permit people to fire bullets into eachother but that doesn't make it right.

It doesn't, but what gives you the right to judge what is right and what is wrong? Are you going to pull out Nietzsche on this one and claim that you have absolute coercive power? I don't see it, if you do.

I'm calling them "griefers" because I don't see any in-game value to what they did. They are deriving external value - the pleasure of unilaterally interfering with other peoples' gaming experience. That is what "griefers" do - they derive pleasure from interfering with other people's gaming and wasting their time, costing them effort, irritating them, etc. How is that different from what the pirates were doing?

"You" don't see any in-game value to what we did. Thank you, problem solved. How about considering the effort and time we put in, getting irritated by combat loggers? Of course you don't, because you have a borderline personality issue that makes you think you're convincing yourself to be right... oh wait .-.

Considering you were - a few moments ago - trying to accuse me of relying on tautology, I'm afraid you need to back up your vigorous assertions above.
It has a purpose: what is that purpose?

I already linked you to our announcement, if you don't read it, it's not my problem.

You just spent the better part of a page trying to argue rubbish, and doing a fairly poor job of it. Please don't dismiss your efforts, though.

And I wonder why people think you are being disdainful toward other people's opinions.

I do, too! That's why I grant people moral agency and expect them to understand the impact of their choices on others.

And I do, too. That's why I grant people aesthetic education and the capability to utilize the reconciliation between the sense impulse and the form impulse, your point? It doesn't make anything less than another intrinsically.

Bugs and NPCs are not moral agents; they do not make a choice.

Then I guess you better email the developers and FD about how they are a bunch of immoral people and should take out all hostile NPCs and Bugs?

More to the point, the game support team actually recognize that if a bug causes you to lose your ship, you ought to be able to ask for it to be recovered. Interesting, if someone makes the choice to cost you your ship, that's just "game play" and the fact that they have wasted someone's time ... is somehow OK?

I will be filing a report every time a bounty hunter comes after me and successfully boil me up, since that is totally not OK.

I will repeat the argument again, since you apparently aren't very good at reading:
Now, the moral argument regarding the blockade: people participating in the CG invested hours of their lives - time that they cannot get back - in order to accomplish a goal. Their goal was not to "haul stuff to Hutton Orbital and get blown up" their goal was to "haul stuff to Hutton Orbital in pursuit of the community goal" When the pirates unilaterally decided to interfere with the players' goals, they were being unfair to those players; they were doing wrong. We can understand this with a simple thought-experiment: what would have happened if the pirates had asked the players "may I interfere with you?" The answer would have been "no" in most cases. Unilaterally involving yourself in someone else's existence in a negative way - whether in game or in real life - is annoying. It is wrong. Of course it is worse to actually blow someone up in actual reality. But that doesn't mean it's not still wrong in game.

And I will repeat:

The problem with you train of thought is that you are set on dismissing the effort of the pirates as non-equivalent of the traders, and that's the problem here. You are unable to surpass the mainstream moral that you've been riding on to make your judgments.

I'm not interested in trying to stack up a bunch of wrongs to decide which ones are worse. I don't engage in any of them. So I can simply look on anyone who does any of those things with appropriate contempt.

If you ever stow that contempt and start to have some mutual consideration with other people and their perspectives, you might find your borderline personality cured, oh wait .-.

Kant? Really?

Actually, the categorical imperative argument is a more abstracted form of the argument I made for why blowing up people who weren't participating in a "pirate event" is wrong. Kant's categorical imperative would argue that one shouldn't do things like that because by doing so, one creates a world in which one has to live; a world in which people pointlessly destroy eachother for no benefit to anyone.

Go read your Kant, instead of just throwing authority names around. That wasn't even a nice try.

Actually, go read your Kant.

The idea of the categorical imperative is that a person establish an axiom to apply to the rest of the world. The axiom here is clearly to simply prevent people from doing what they want to do. So it does make sense. One can feel the need to prevent people from doing non-piracy activities and still follow said axiom.

Your moral polarization is preventing you from viewing the issue relatively objectively, and that's the issue here. If you want to accuse me of having borderline personality, you should seriously look at yourself.

 

[Apos]

One of the nice things FD did about powerplay was they made it possible for people to completely opt out of it. Again, it comes back to expectations. I suspect that if somehow powerplay gameplay intruded destructively onto people who were just minding their business - there would be complaints.

But I'm not referring to PP. I'm talking about BGS manipulation here. They turned Leesti to an independent system.

And this is something which is affected by open, private and solo mind you. Unlike pirates which someone can avoid by switching. There is no "safe haven" for anyone who spends any time with the factions.

You reveal your bias, when you basically fall back to asserting that having the power to act unilaterally means it is moral to do so. Every bully, ever, has said that.

So, shall I start creating threads that FD should ban all Federals and Imperials who manipulate the BGS in Alliance systems? Would you support them since they are clearly the "bullies" in this scenario?

 

[GluttonyFang]

Bit of a defensive reaction there... Grieving wasn't even mentioned in the OP

Hello moderator, there was a previous post about the issue and locked due to hostility, thus I'm trying to prevent people from heading down the same path.

 

[Surly_Badger]

Is the name of the beach "Sandcastle: Dangerous" because if so, that's a poor name for a beach first of all and 2nd, never take a kid to a beach named anything "dangerous".

I do think that if the kid had entered into "CQC BATTLE DOME OF THE SANDCASTLES" then we might be having a different conversation.

I'd imagine that if the kid was building an ornate sand copy of Versailles, instead of the Fuhrerbunker, perhaps one of the referees might sidle over and ask the kid, "Uh, do you understand that you are probably in the wrong place?"

Again, to my main point, that scenario above ("do you understand...?") is right and good because it increases the kid's liberty by helping them understand their options and opening up freedom of action.

When someone destroys your sandcastle, unilaterally, they have closed down your options to do anything more with your sandcastle, including enjoying your accomplishment.

- - - Updated - - -

But I'm not referring to PP. I'm talking about BGS manipulation here. They turned Leesti to an independent system.

So, shall I start creating threads that FD should ban all Federals and Imperials who manipulate the BGS in Alliance systems? Would you support them since they are clearly the "bullies" in this scenario?

I have no idea because I haven't paid any attention to it, but - yeah - if you think that it was wrong, what they did, go ahead. I'm glad you've got a better handle on how to behave as moral agent.

 

[Mysteron]

What a boring galaxy it would be without bandits roaming the stars. This attack by the Code is great emergent gameplay. If I was trucking to Hutton I would be looking at how to survive by winging up with fighter escorts or using stealth and speed or even pretending to be a bandit to get past them. I have encountered bandits in the past and it has been an exhilarating and highly entertaining experience. Space is dangerous and that's the way I like it...

Look, I've played devil's advocate for a while about this but the truth is that it's a game. A group of guys learned to play together and the anger against them comes because the large majority doesn't play as a team, they play as individuals. Sure there can be a cry for help and some big bruisers come running, but they don't stay because it's boring. If the CODE guys have the cohesion to stick around and keep a blockade for the duration, that's 100x more than anyone else here is doing to stop it. Let's be honest, it's all about getting Cr for most of you anyhow. CODE isn't making any CR doing what they are doing. I'd bet they are losing it but they have a goal and have stuck to it. Isn't that what "community goal" is about? They have a community and they make their own goals. More power to them. When it becomes a violation of game rules to do so, that's different, but it's not. It just isn't in the direction the masses have decided to swim.

 

[Kazacy]

Except that in the end there only would be destroyers left but no one building something up to destroy.

And if only the "destroyers" remain is this a bad thing? In my humble opinion no, is not a problem, especially because in this game all the "hard work", like building the ships, is made by npc's so i fail to see a problem here.

 

[Apos]

I have no idea because I haven't paid any attention to it, but - yeah - if you think that it was wrong, what they did, go ahead. I'm glad you've got a better handle on how to behave as moral agent.

I do think that what they did was "wrong" from my perspective of an Alliance supporter.

I also think that it was perfectly within their capabilities and incentives based on their interests to do it.

What I'm going to do about it is flip Leesti back to the Alliance. What I would like to be able to do is create a story out of it, but FD is ignoring me and the Alliance completely and prefers posting stories about Patreus smooching with the 2 princesses.

In short, I'm not expecting to be treated nicely by people who I have conflicting interests with. Instead, I make sure to provide safety to my own interests instead.

 

[GluttonyFang]

You can say it, but can you back it up?

Easily, you aren't taking into consideration the effort pirates put in to perform the blockade and refuse to step off the mainstream morality, because it is convenient.

I don't believe there is a separation. Games are part of real life; they are a subset of our lives. We spend our time playing games, just as we spend our time walking and eating or doing other hobbies. Is there a fundamental difference between a "game" and "flying a kite"? The question is the degree to which what we spend our time doing is tangible and important to us.

Obviously, for some people, hauling stuff to Hutton Orbital was worth the hours they spent doing it. It may be a "game" but those were real hours.

It's convenient, for some, to insist that there is a wall between reality and .. what? Game reality? But that denies the obvious fact that our game reality is part of real reality. We wouldn't play the game, otherwise!! We wouldn't play the game if we didn't get tangible satisfaction or pleasure in doing so. Which is why I think it ought to be obvious that if you're reducing someone's pleasure in-game you're just as much of a great big meanie as if you go smash someone's kite that they're flying. Yes, there are matters of degree; a kite might cost more to fix. But then we're just equivocating and ranking wrongs.

What you're discussing is the sense impulse, we perceive everything. "We animate what we see and we see what we animate" --Emerson, in Experience. The thing I have been stressing since the beginning of this argument is that we need to understand and tolerate one another's perception of things instead of trying to strangle each other and claim that one another is wrong. It's impulsive, but the ability to control that impulse is precisely what makes us different from animals. Some people take our action more seriously than others, who don't consider the purpose why we do things from our perspective other than assuming that we are grievers, and despite that is what people are naturally inclined to do, it doesn't make the world better.

If you are so keen on seeing people being "moral" perhaps you should start on the line of tolerance instead of assertion of standardized morality.

I know I am a borderline personality.

That is precisely why I think about this stuff so much.

Good to know.

 

[Zelos1983]

@ OP

If you have PvP enabled, which is not a requirement for doing community goals, then you should be prepared to interact with other CMDRs. That includes player wings such as CODE. Rather than abandoning community goals, which you probably would otherwise enjoy, the logical solution would be to disable PvP.

 

[Moriarte]

You can say it, but can you back it up?




I don't believe there is a separation. Games are part of real life; they are a subset of our lives. We spend our time playing games, just as we spend our time walking and eating or doing other hobbies. Is there a fundamental difference between a "game" and "flying a kite"? The question is the degree to which what we spend our time doing is tangible and important to us.

Obviously, for some people, hauling stuff to Hutton Orbital was worth the hours they spent doing it. It may be a "game" but those were real hours.

It's convenient, for some, to insist that there is a wall between reality and .. what? Game reality? But that denies the obvious fact that our game reality is part of real reality. We wouldn't play the game, otherwise!! We wouldn't play the game if we didn't get tangible satisfaction or pleasure in doing so. Which is why I think it ought to be obvious that if you're reducing someone's pleasure in-game you're just as much of a great big meanie as if you go smash someone's kite that they're flying. Yes, there are matters of degree; a kite might cost more to fix. But then we're just equivocating and ranking wrongs.

There is a big difference between believing and knowing. Believing is emotional impulse, while knowing implies that you are convinced by means of logic and facts. Therefore, absence of separation you spoke of is subjective at best. You don't back that up, essentially you just say "I feel so". Well, I know differently. Different people have different perceptions, see. Playing video games is escapism - no gain, pure waste of time. Hence, further argumentation of merit of certain behaviour patterns and unacceptability of others is laughable. The only requirement is decency.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

We are not pirating, we are blockading.

I have to ask... do you have a RP reason for the blockade though? Do you somehow object to Hutton Orbital selling mugs? Do CODE have some sort of downer on humourous mugs?

Or, as I suspect, the blockade only exists because you know players are heading there, so you just want to stop them because you want your PvP kicks?

Not that i mind too much as long as those involved are being fair about it, like you said, giving warnings, giving people a chance. If its just insta-gank, then I can't approve. Those travelling to Hutton should be aware of the risks and not flying something that can be taken apart in seconds.

Of course, one more issue, those blockading effectively being able to ignore station security and can still keep killing people near to the station. FD really could do with doing something make being near the station safe. Getting to the station safely at least should be a kind of reward, not a dead end where you are stuck between a killer and no spare docking pads.

 

[Surly_Badger]

I already linked you to our announcement, if you don't read it, it's not my problem.

I read it. I didn't see anything in there that was a positive game-play benefit of interfering with the CG. That I didn't see that in there isn't my problem, it's yours.

And I wonder why people think you are being disdainful toward other people's opinions.

They're right. I am being distainful of your opinions. That's exactly the point. I think your opinions are repugnant and I have spent the last couple postings explaining why.

The fact that they are "opinion" also doesn't shelter them from critique*

Then I guess you better email the developers and FD about how they are a bunch of immoral people and should take out all hostile NPCs and Bugs?

NPCs and bugs do not make moral choices. If they did, that would make for a really unusual discussion indeed.

The problem with you train of thought is that you are set on dismissing the effort of the pirates as non-equivalent of the traders, and that's the problem here. You are unable to surpass the mainstream moral that you've been riding on to make your judgments.

I've been doing nothing but explaining why the actions of the pirates absolutely are non-equivalent to the actions of the traders. You just don't want to hear it because you don't want to accept my reasoning. That's fine. Probably you realize that on these kinds of forums, the battle isn't to convince the person you're arguing with -- the battle is to air the views and present the arguments and the victory is in the people who silently read, and think about what they've read. So the question for you is whether you've been doing a good job of justifying the pirates, or whether I've been doing a good job of explaining why they were big meanies. I'd say "you be the judge" but - you won't.

If you ever stow that contempt and start to have some mutual consideration with other people and their perspectives, you might find your borderline personality cured, oh wait .-.

I have been doing nothing but explaining why your opinions are contemptible, and you accuse me of holding you in contempt? Please, tell me something I don't already know!?

If you want to accuse me of having borderline personality, you should seriously look at yourself.

I already told you I've been diagnosed with BPD before. I scored some really crazy stuff on the MMPI back in 1984 when I was still an undergrad in the psych department at Johns Hopkins. Tell me some things about myself that I don't know.


(* Pro tip: don't go down that path because if you say opinion is automatically sheltered from critique then you invite everyone's negative opinion on you and shelter them from critique)