Griefing: Is it?

[IronGremlin]

People really like to just cherry pick the parts of posts they want to respond to, apparently.

There is such a thing as playing a part of an aggressor without really being a bad human, I think we can all agree on that point.

But "griefing doesn't exist" us a fallacious argument - you're basically saying that no matter how you behave, there is no moral import whatsoever to your actions -

I think I fundamentally disagree with this. If you do a thing for the express purpose of irritating someone else, you're being a jackass, hands down, no argument, that is the definition of jackassery.

If someone seriously wants to argue about the relative import of being a jackass in a videogame, that's a matter of opinion, but whether or not you're a jackass is not up for debate.

 

[Khelder]

People really like to just cherry pick the parts of posts they want to respond to, apparently.

There is such a thing as playing a part of an aggressor without really being a bad human, I think we can all agree on that point.

But "griefing doesn't exist" us a fallacious argument - you're basically saying that no matter how you behave, there is no moral import whatsoever to your actions -

I think I fundamentally disagree with this. If you do a thing for the express purpose of irritating someone else, you're being a jackass, hands down, no argument, that is the definition of jackassery.

If someone seriously wants to argue about the relative import of being a jackass in a videogame, that's a matter of opinion, but whether or not you're a jackass is not up for debate.

Well said.

I think the problem (as I see it) by a number of posters is that they seem to miss the distinction between playing a single-player game and a multi-player game. Leaving aside someone's motivations for acting a certain way, if you choose to be the aggressor or even griefer against NPCs - there is no human impact. If you are playing a game with other humans and you act this way - there is going to be a human impact. You can't just wash it all away with a simple 'it's just a game'. By being multi-player, it is more than just a game. It has become a real human interaction.

Now, it is the choice of each player to be a part of that game and they must accept that there are different types of people out there. But you can't expect that you can act however you want without affecting real people in a real way. If you choose to forcefully engage other humans in 'combat' via the game even though they expressly say they want no part of it, you are going to cause hurt. If you choose to cause harm (grief) to another human player for your own enjoyment, that player is very likely to be hurt.

The problem is a complete lack of empathy on the part of some players. And that doesn't mean that you have to treat everyone with kid gloves. It is Elite Dangerous after all. But it helps if you have at least some understanding of how the other person would feel from their perspective.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Well said.

I think the problem (as I see it) by a number of posters is that they seem to miss the distinction between playing a single-player game and a multi-player game. Leaving aside someone's motivations for acting a certain way, if you choose to be the aggressor or even griefer against NPCs - there is no human impact. If you are playing a game with other humans and you act this way - there is going to be a human impact. You can't just wash it all away with a simple 'it's just a game'. By being multi-player, it is more than just a game. It has become a real human interaction.

Now, it is the choice of each player to be a part of that game and they must accept that there are different types of people out there. But you can't expect that you can act however you want without affecting real people in a real way. If you choose to forcefully engage other humans in 'combat' via the game even though they expressly say they want no part of it, you are going to cause hurt. If you choose to cause harm (grief) to another human player for your own enjoyment, that player is very likely to be hurt.

The problem is a complete lack of empathy on the part of some players. And that doesn't mean that you have to treat everyone with kid gloves. It is Elite Dangerous after all. But it helps if you have at least some understanding of how the other person would feel from their perspective.

Thing is FD provided a game-mode where humans are allowed to impact on others. It matters less whether we think it is okay, and more whether or not it is allowed in the sandbox world. In my experience, having your feelings hurt has always been a risk. Numerous players have suggested putting a trigger warning (myself included) next to open play warning people they this could happen. Thing is, it could happen when an NPC does it as well. It just seems feelings are hurt more when another player is gratified. Even if they don't type any abusive messages. As it stands the only way to avoid getting hurt at the gratification of other players is not to play PvP games (or game modes, or modes that enable PvP combat), it will always be this way.

 

[Khelder]

Thing is FD provided a game-mode where humans are allowed to impact on others. It matters less whether we think it is okay, and more whether or not it is allowed in the sandbox world. In my experience, having your feelings hurt has always been a risk. Numerous players have suggested putting a trigger warning (myself included) next to open play warning people they this could happen. Thing is, it could happen when an NPC does it as well. It just seems feelings are hurt more when another player is gratified. Even if they don't type any abusive messages. As it stands the only way to avoid getting hurt at the gratification of other players is not to play PvP games (or game modes, or modes that enable PvP combat), it will always be this way.

I'm not saying that the game doesn't allow these types of activities or that players who play in open are not aware of the risk. What I am saying is that (from the impression I get from various comments in these forums) some players have absolutely no grasp of the concept that their in-game actions actually affect real people in a real way. If a player understands that and then proceeds to act in a certain way, then you can interpret those actions and the type of person they are many ways. But don't ever suggest that you can do whatever you want in a multi-player game without impacting other humans.

From a personal point of view. I will interdict wanted NPCs on occasion and take them down for the bounty. I've even done the occasional assassination mission. I roleplay activities I would not dream of doing in real life. But I don't interdict PCs - wanted or not. I feel uncomfortable doing that to another human player. I might feel differently if I felt the need to fight against a blockade or something. And I would have no problem defending myself against a human player if I was attacked first. That's just the way I personally play. I'm certainly not saying that everyone needs to.

My first reaction to the warning suggest was, 'Please, no warnings. The world has enough stupid warnings.' But perhaps it might be a good idea to have a short description of what the mode entails. I would also want this to point out (to those who seem to be confused) that it is Open mode, not PvP mode. The possibility exists for aggressive human interaction. It is not the sole intent.

 

[Terry Bruge-Hiplo]

Thing is FD provided a game-mode where humans are allowed to impact on others. It matters less whether we think it is okay, and more whether or not it is allowed in the sandbox world. In my experience, having your feelings hurt has always been a risk. Numerous players have suggested putting a trigger warning (myself included) next to open play warning people they this could happen. Thing is, it could happen when an NPC does it as well. It just seems feelings are hurt more when another player is gratified. Even if they don't type any abusive messages. As it stands the only way to avoid getting hurt at the gratification of other players is not to play PvP games (or game modes, or modes that enable PvP combat), it will always be this way.

Hearing numerous complaints about being interdicted and blown up even though they were trading and minding their own business makes me wonder why these people are even in Open to begin with. If your reasoning is "I must be allowed to go about my business without interference" then Open Play is not for you. It's that simple. Surely? But people call that griefing too. I take issue with that. Just because you didn't have any guns doesn't mean you shouldn't expect to die by the hand of someone else. Does one play Open for the social aspect? Well, some of that social aspect involves people who will kill you without explanation.

Killing explorers is not griefing. Killing traders is not griefing. I'm quite sick of seeing people saying that it is. They took your cargo AND killed you? Too bad!

 

[Khelder]

Killing explorers is not griefing.

To use one of your examples... Killing an explorer because they happened to be unlucky enough to wander into the 'wrong part of space', that's one thing. Travelling to a ridiculously remote location that you know explorers will travel to for the 'achievement' and then taking them out there because you know full well that they will be almost defenseless, unprepared, and thoroughly annoyed... that's a whole different ball game.

 

[Terry Bruge-Hiplo]

To use one of your examples... Killing an explorer because they happened to be unlucky enough to wander into the 'wrong part of space', that's one thing. Travelling to a ridiculously remote location that you know explorers will travel to for the 'achievement' and then taking them out there because you know full well that they will be almost defenseless, unprepared, and thoroughly annoyed... that's a whole different ball game.

I don't consider that griefing either. Sadistic? Sure! Cruel? Sure! Funny? Well, I laughed when I read about it in the Newsletter

 

[Asp Explorer]

To use one of your examples... Killing an explorer because they happened to be unlucky enough to wander into the 'wrong part of space', that's one thing. Travelling to a ridiculously remote location that you know explorers will travel to for the 'achievement' and then taking them out there because you know full well that they will be almost defenseless, unprepared, and thoroughly annoyed... that's a whole different ball game.

Very true. I also fully expect some Explorer-Killers to be laughed at and lulzbanned by certain other CMDR's who pay attention to bandwidth and their scanner. It's not something I'd do - but there is a certain beauty to it.

Mr. Pew Pew - "I IZ heer 2 pew pew u n00b xplor up coz I can an I is pew pew!"
Xplor - "I really don't care. Eat router"
Mr. Pew Pew - "NAU I IS GREEFED!"

 

[Khelder]

I don't consider that griefing either. Sadistic? Sure! Cruel? Sure! Funny? Well, I laughed when I read about it in the Newsletter

I'm not sure what your definition of griefing is then.

griefer/ˈɡriːfə/
noun
1.
an online game player who intentionally spoils the game for other players

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

I'm not sure what your definition of griefing is then.

Again, that problem is not one that FD has to deal with alone. It is in ALL online games nearly. It just seems the definition of what spoils the game is subjective. At least the proactive gamer (sounds better than griefer) is having a good time. FD obviously allow this to happen, as part of their Dangrous galaxy.

 

[Terry Bruge-Hiplo]

I'm not sure what your definition of griefing is then.

Well, I don't see the interaction as out of the bounds of acceptable gameplay. Heck, they could ram an explorer to death at Sag A* and I still think it'd be fine. I question the reasoning of someone who goes out into deep space in Open play and then calls foul play when they get caught and destroyed by someone else. Sag A* is not a no-fire zone.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Sag A* is not a no-fire zone.

Of course it's not. Many people head there for the fun of it, some will be in combat capable ships, and some will not. There is absolutely nothing in-game to stop anyone killing anyone else - as is it should be.

There is however, the question of reason. Why should anyone have a reason to blow anyone else up at the centre of the galaxy? I can think of very few legitimate ones. Maybe another CMDR is in an opposing faction, that "might" give some reason supported in-game. Maybe one CMDR is "role-playing" a complete psycho who shoots everything on sight for urm, reasons. That "might" give some reason supported in-game. Terribly weak though. Maybe some CMDR is just trying to deny people their exploration data. That "might" give some reason supported in-game. I still don't see what anyone hopes to gain from that though.

 

[Terry Bruge-Hiplo]

Of course it's not. Many people head there for the fun of it, some will be in combat capable ships, and some will not. There is absolutely nothing in-game to stop anyone killing anyone else - as is it should be.

There is however, the question of reason. Why should anyone have a reason to blow anyone else up at the centre of the galaxy? I can think of very few legitimate ones. Maybe another CMDR is in an opposing faction, that "might" give some reason supported in-game. Maybe one CMDR is "role-playing" a complete psycho who shoots everything on sight for urm, reasons. That "might" give some reason supported in-game. Terribly weak though. Maybe some CMDR is just trying to deny people their exploration data. That "might" give some reason supported in-game. I still don't see what anyone hopes to gain from that though.

I understand that. But the luxury of knowing why someone does something is not something we are often afforded. I don't like the idea that because there's some consensus that it means that the behaviour is not permissible. I am ok with there being psychotics, sociopaths, world burners, pirates, anarchists, whatever. I'm not ok with someone calling it griefing just because they were put out by it.

Quote from front page of ED web site (emphasis mine): [h=3]TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR OWN STARSHIP IN A CUT-THROAT GALAXY.[/h]If you're only in it for the first part of that statement, don't go into Open. I really think it's that simple.

 

[Asp Explorer]

I understand that. But the luxury of knowing why someone does something is not something we are often afforded. I don't like the idea that because there's some consensus that it means that the behaviour is not permissible. I am ok with there being psychotics, sociopaths, world burners, pirates, anarchists, whatever. I'm not ok with someone calling it griefing just because they were put out by it.

Quote from front page of ED web site (emphasis mine): [h=3]TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR OWN STARSHIP IN A CUT-THROAT GALAXY.[/h]If you're only in it for the first part of that statement, don't go into Open. I really think it's that simple.

Aaah but that's the thing. If people think it's OK for people to behave in unpleasant ways, with absolutely no in-game reason for it - then what is to stop me lulzbanning every IP I come across for the lulz?

It's not hurting anyone in-game, and it's not combat logging, and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it.

 

[Terry Bruge-Hiplo]

Aaah but that's the thing. If people think it's OK for people to behave in unpleasant ways, with absolutely no in-game reason for it - then what is to stop me lulzbanning every IP I come across for the lulz?

It's not hurting anyone in-game, and it's not combat logging, and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it.

Is that an ability you have in this game? Otherwise, I don't understand. If you mean on another game on a server you run, that's your prerogative as an admin.

 

[Khelder]

I understand that. But the luxury of knowing why someone does something is not something we are often afforded. I don't like the idea that because there's some consensus that it means that the behaviour is not permissible. I am ok with there being psychotics, sociopaths, world burners, pirates, anarchists, whatever. I'm not ok with someone calling it griefing just because they were put out by it.

Quote from front page of ED web site (emphasis mine): TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR OWN STARSHIP IN A CUT-THROAT GALAXY.

If you're only in it for the first part of that statement, don't go into Open. I really think it's that simple.

Exploits aside, the behaviour is permissible. And, as annoying as it is, I guess everyone just has to live with that.

But wouldn't it be nice if players put some consideration into how their game/role playing contributes to the game as a whole? Rather than just taking some arbitrary action because it would amuse them at the time? Putting the group before yourself? Self-restricting in order to make the whole a better experience?

That doesn't mean you can't be a psychotic, sociopath, world burner, etc. It means not pushing the limits of your activities to absurdity purely because the game mechanics allow you to. It may even mean backing off at times in order to allow other professions to prosper. Because without all the variants, your game would be diminished as well. There's no fun in being a sociopath in a universe with nobody left but sociopaths.

 

[Schmack]

The OP is referring to the fact that all of the "bubble" is in fact a danger zone. Well of course it is. There's no safety, even in stations. Hell I see NPC ships get blown to smithereens just for rubbernecking too long. Nope, there's no safety, and the issue with winging up is that most people who play either don't know anyone to wing up with or the concept is so inconvenient as to be undesirable. For those who want to and can wing up, go for it. You'll have to trust those you winged up with though, no shyness. Jump in and request a wing. Don't do it though in your new Anaconda base model with nary insurance.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Is that an ability you have in this game? Otherwise, I don't understand. If you mean on another game on a server you run, that's your prerogative as an admin.

Not really - Elite offers modes - everyone can play in Solo and avoid the pew-pews. Some other players play in Open in cheap ships and maintain a meticulous log of CMDR names and IP addresses, and then have a bit of fun with those.

 

[IronGremlin]

Well, I don't see the interaction as out of the bounds of acceptable gameplay. Heck, they could ram an explorer to death at Sag A* and I still think it'd be fine. I question the reasoning of someone who goes out into deep space in Open play and then calls foul play when they get caught and destroyed by someone else. Sag A* is not a no-fire zone.

Nobody is asking whether or not the game allows it.

That's not a discussion point.

The discussion point is whether or not this behavior makes the person who did it a .

That's a subjective point. It might not seem like a move to you, in which case, you're welcome to your opinion.

Like any other social situation, if you promote or engage in behaviors that everyone around you sees as violating basic social mores, then people are going to perceive you as a .

That's how people are.

Generally, it's considered poor taste to engage in such behaviors. So, we call it "griefing."

Nobody, anywhere, in or out of a simulation, is magically exempt from being a jackass just because the rules technically allow you to be a jackass.

 

[Terry Bruge-Hiplo]

Exploits aside, the behaviour is permissible. And, as annoying as it is, I guess everyone just has to live with that.

But wouldn't it be nice if players put some consideration into how their game/role playing contributes to the game as a whole? Rather than just taking some arbitrary action because it would amuse them at the time? Putting the group before yourself? Self-restricting in order to make the whole a better experience?

That doesn't mean you can't be a psychotic, sociopath, world burner, etc. It means not pushing the limits of your activities to absurdity purely because the game mechanics allow you to. It may even mean backing off at times in order to allow other professions to prosper. Because without all the variants, your game would be diminished as well. There's no fun in being a sociopath in a universe with nobody left but sociopaths.

I agreed with you on the first line, and I think that would have been the perfect place to end the reply, but then you diverged into an attempt at compromising one playstyle in favour of another, which undermined the first statement.

Not really - Elite offers modes - everyone can play in Solo and avoid the pew-pews. Some other players play in Open in cheap ships and maintain a meticulous log of CMDR names and IP addresses, and then have a bit of fun with those.

That's actually venturing into unlawful behaviour in the real world. Because someone blew up your ship in a game? Talk about seriously sour wine berries.