Griefing: Is it?

I'm going to post this in every thread that covers this subject in futile hopes that maybe, one day, PvPers and PvEers may get along.

gflow (3).jpg
 
Just for the sake of argument, Gluttony, say for instance that one day real society started to accept that it is okay for a man to beat a women (there are societies in the world where this is already the case). According to your logic, if society were to think that beating women was okay then we all must agree that beating women is an acceptable instrument of happiness.

To be able to hold a dissenting opinion against the society is what makes an individual an individual, losing that capacity would mean the complete loss of independence. People reserve the right to disagree with societal moral and stipulation, for the reason that the society's instrument to a convergence of collective and biased instruments to happiness come in conflict with individuals' instruments.

However, once an individual brings the multitude of morality into the structure of hierarchy and try to utilize it as an objective judgement, it becomes ludicrous.

I personally would never find any domestic abuse acceptable under my perspective, since I was the victim of one. However, that gives me no right to claim "man beating a woman" to be somehow intrinsically inferior to any other acts. It shares equivalence with charity, in my perspective and philosophical view. The only difference between the two are assignment of moral affinity by humanity, which I don't exactly subscribe to, since I dislike bandwagon.

What I will do, instead is inform any individual that exercising domestic violence and point out the stipulation in a society that prohibits his/her/it action and will potentially punish him/her/it for doing so. Is it fair? No, but we are a gregarious race and we are moving toward providing equality for all in an intrinsic sense, therefore certain compromises are inevitable and perhaps worthy in the sense of that it exchange for a place in the society that will provide more benefit than harm.

Morality is irrelevant, it can be relevant in the sense that it shapes the very nomocracy we live under, but since that is already violence done, there's no need to emphasize said violence and perhaps pushing it further by promoting it.

Is this to say that it's right to beat women? If you moved to, say, Saudi Arabia (where it isn't against the law for a man to beat his wife) would you automatically assume the frame-of-mind that beating your wife is a moral act? I'd wager not.

There is no "right" or "wrong" in an absolute sense, an act is merely an act, but humanity has the hobby of giving form and categorizing matters, which is a violence of its own. "Wife beating" to me has no moral value, it's an act, simple as that. Perhaps many are coerced by being raised in a "moral" society to believe in such morality, but because of how semi-intrinsic it becomes to people that rely on it, it's actually just as dangerous as human nature, and if anything, more dangerous due to its flexibility. I need not to bring up history of wars fought over morality and culture to express said point.

This demonstrates that morals are not just a social construct, but instead something rooted deep within the individual human psyche. Some would argue that morals is what sets the human mind apart from animal minds.

Morals is not a social construct, but rather a vague concept utilized to justify and demonize acts that are beneficial and harmful to one respectively. We have no understanding of animal other than our human bias, we have not a clue as to what their world is like other than judging them through our human lens. When we use categories generated by humans to classify others, of course it's easy to distinguish and discriminate. I can make an argument for animals having morals as well, since one can condition a human just as one can condition an animal by utilizing reward and punishment. Since moral isn't intrinsic, it can develop in both animals and humans.

In the same instance, if FDev were to say that needlessly killing players is alright, does that mean it is? I mean, the Saudi government allows men to beat their wives, but does that make it alright?

You as an individual are to make that judgement. To me, it matters not. To some, it is quite justified. Many are spoiled by the vague consensus of morality when there is actually little to no consent.

They're two extremes, but as you can see morals cannot merely be decided by those who create the society. They are individual. The issue that arises is that less-moral players will happily "grief" others and, when flagged for the lack-of-morals, they hide behind the scapegoat of "FDev says it's okay", similar to how the more brutal demographic of the male Saudi population who beat the wives hide behind the scapegoat of "the government says it's okay".

There you go again, using your morality as a standard to judge others and brand them inferior in comparison to you. You are free to believe in what is right and what is wrong, but when you try to universalize your morality, no matter how popular it is, it is nothing more than an attempt to exercise violence against others, against those different than yourself. When said morality is popular, it devolves into majority tyranny. Which, again, is a necessity to a degree. But without this perspective of reconciliation, there's nothing more than the cycle of dominance that haunted human history.

I'd argue that neither acts are at all "okay". The simple description is that the less moral of the players have found a loophole in the system that allows them to exercise their not-so-friendly route to happiness.

Discretion of diction is a personal freedom that I believe everyone has. But when utilizing said diction to intentionally discriminate against others is not what I find very constructive.

What is "less moral?" "Loophole?" "Not-so-friendly route to happiness?"

These concepts are not universalized and cannot be. However, that does not lessen the vital point that you deserve to voice your opinion like everyone else. Purposely demeaning other people for simply having a different morality or opinion is not necessary. The ability to object against society and other individual is what makes you an individual, but this objection doesn't need the taint of moralizing, since its an extra layer of violence that isn't necessary to express yourself.

Reason with people, understand them, see where they are coming from. Know you interests, interpret other people's interests, then compromise.

Perhaps one day people will call "PvP griefers," and "PvE carebear" as just players, perhaps there is no need to assign a title with the intent to demean an individual or a collective group of people.

Of course, this is an ideal, but the process of becoming and reaching for the ideal has been the pursuit of many political system as of late, in comparison to the ancient time where there were fixated forms to discover.
 
Last edited:
To be able to hold a dissenting opinion against the society is what makes an individual an individual, losing that capacity would mean the complete loss of independence.

I disagree. I can quite easily retain my individuality whether I choose to defect from society or not; after-all, no human is the same as any other. Society is just a collection of individuals - agreeing with their collection of peoples does not make them any less of an individual. The individual is a prerequisite of society, remember, so to express this point that people can defect from society is needless as it's a necessary truth.

People reserve the right to disagree with societal moral and stipulation, for the reason that the society's instrument to a convergence of collective and biased instruments to happiness come in conflict with individuals' instruments.

Adding to what I just said, there isn't actually such thing as "societal moral and stipulation" as such a thing is just an agreement between individuals. As the individual is a prerequisite to society, the individual morals are a prerequisite to this phantom "societal moral and stipulation". Thus it's impossible to claim that society's morals or worth more than the individual's.

However, once an individual brings the multitude of morality into the structure of hierarchy and try to utilize it as an objective judgement, it becomes ludicrous.

Incorrect. Individual morality is what creates such hierarchy. Again, I'll reiterate, it's individual morals that define the multitude (whether such a multitude can be proven to exist or not) so to bring morality to hierarchy makes perfect sense.

I personally would never find any domestic abuse acceptable under my perspective, since I was the victim of one.

I'm sorry to hear that.

However, that gives me no right to claim "man beating a woman" to be somehow intrinsically inferior to any other acts.

Actually, yes it does. As societal morals are merely an agreement between individual morals, your moral compass is as valued in society as anyone else's. If you disagree with it, speak it as a voice among society. As society is a collection of individuals, as is a bridge a collection of metal beams and cables - were a metal beam to bend, or a cable to snap, the bridge would be substantially weaker and fall apart. Your individuality matters. If you think that a man beating a woman is wrong you have every right to say so.

It shares equivalence with charity, in my perspective and philosophical view. The only difference between the two are assignment of moral affinity by humanity, which I don't exactly subscribe to, since I dislike bandwagon.

To say that domestic violence shares equivalence with charity suggests something rather scary, philosophically. It has been argued, and still is, that morals don't exist - they're a phantom of our emotions. However, in this discussion it's necessary that we assume morals exist as it is the entire foundation of that so-called "societal moral and stipulation" you were talking about. Also, the last part of that suggests that your arguments are rooted in nothing other than the will to be different - have you heard of the man who built his house on sand?

What I will do, instead is inform any individual that exercising domestic violence and point out the stipulation in a society that prohibits his/her/it action and will potentially punish him/her/it for doing so.

Precisely. You claim that actions are actions and that to exercise domestic violence is no better/worse than charity, yet you have the morality to warn this man/woman that their actions may land them in a bad place (so to potentially save that man/woman from harm?). If you were serious about your claim that there is just "actions" you'd have no reason to tell the man/woman anything; it'd be no more/less wrong of you to handcuff the abusive man/woman and execute them than to warn them of the potential danger their actions may land them in. Thus, from that, I can deduce that even though you claim to have no moral affinity, you still act in a way to to help someone (which is a primal feature of morality).

s it fair? No, but we are a gregarious race and we are moving toward providing equality for all in an intrinsic sense, therefore certain compromises are inevitable and perhaps worthy in the sense of that it exchange for a place in the society that will provide more benefit than harm.

If there is nothing more than "actions" why do you care about providing equality for all? And if you are in-fact serious about providing equality for all why are you so eagerly defending people who have clearly acted in a very unfair way, in Elite: Dangerous?

Morality is irrelevant, it can be relevant in the sense that it shapes the very nomocracy we live under, but since that is already violence done, there's no need to emphasize said violence and perhaps pushing it further by promoting it.

Morality is very relevant. As I said earlier, it is individual morality that shapes the very "societal morals" that you were addressing earlier. I disagree with the notion that to be moral = to be violent. You'll often find that the most moral of us are pushing for a less violent world. So, to claim that pushing morals = promoting violence is laughable.

There is no "right" or "wrong" in an absolute sense, an act is merely an act, but humanity has the hobby of giving form and categorizing matters, which is a violence of its own. "Wife beating" to me has no moral value, it's an act, simple as that.

It isn't up to you, nor me, to decide whether morals are an absolute necessary existence. It is impossible to prove whether morals are a creation of the mind or whether they're a universal set of laws that govern us all. So, unless you're prepared to defend your views that morals aren't absolute against legendary philosophers such as Emanuel Kant, I'd be prepared to dismiss your view as it's nothing more than an opinion - a baseless one at that.

Perhaps many are coerced by being raised in a "moral" society to believe in such morality, but because of how semi-intrinsic it becomes to people that rely on it, it's actually just as dangerous as human nature, and if anything, more dangerous due to its flexibility. I need not to bring up history of wars fought over morality and culture to express said point.

The long string of contradictions in your response is perhaps thickest here. You claim that actions are actions and hold no moral value, yet you appear to be condemning war. Why? Because your morals tell you that war is bad. But I thought actions are actions? So, even though you suggest that morality inherited from society is dangerous, you use your morality (which I can only assume you inherited from society) to condemn war. It begs the question: are you yourself even sure of what your views are?

Morals is not a social construct, but rather a vague concept utilized to justify and demonize acts that are beneficial and harmful to one respectively. We have no understanding of animal other than our human bias, we have not a clue as to what their world is like other than judging them through our human lens. When we use categories generated by humans to classify others, of course it's easy to distinguish and discriminate. I can make an argument for animals having morals as well, since one can condition a human just as one can condition an animal by utilizing reward and punishment. Since moral isn't intrinsic, it can develop in both animals and humans.

As I've said, it's not up to you nor I to decide what exactly morals are. Philosophers far smarter than you and I have debated that for centuries, so let's not even try and go there.

When I said that morality is what sets us apart from animals, I was not voicing my own opinion. I was simply saying that that is what some thing, since humans clearly have a far wider range of emotive expressions and morals than animals - some animals (dolphins, for example) do express some extent of morality and a sense of right and wrong. Why? Who knows. Let's leave it to the marine biologists.

You as an individual are to make that judgement. To me, it matters not. To some, it is quite justified. Many are spoiled by the vague consensus of morality when there is actually little to no consent.

Yes, you're correct. It is up to me. Thank you for helping me disregard the common griefer defense of "FDev say it's okay". Just because they say it is okay doesn't mean it is.

There you go again, using your morality as a standard to judge others and brand them inferior in comparison to you. You are free to believe in what is right and what is wrong, but when you try to universalize your morality, no matter how popular it is, it is nothing more than an attempt to exercise violence against others, against those different than yourself. When said morality is popular, it devolves into majority tyranny. Which, again, is a necessity to a degree. But without this perspective of reconciliation, there's nothing more than the cycle of dominance that haunted human history.

Just to point out, almost the entirety of the British Justice System is based off of the moral "laws" put forwards by the Bible. If they are allowed to judge others based on morals, why can't I? Is the British Justice System exercising violence on people? That poor who was convicted for life - I really feel he has been violated by the British Justice System.

Your argument here can be reduced to absurdity fairly easily. Humans use morals to judge other people on a daily, hourly, perhaps second-ly basis. That drunk you looked at on the train and thought "what a disgrace" or "poor man, I should help him" - morals.

Are you seriously suggesting that using morals to protect people from murderers and rapists is akin to exercising violence?

These concepts are not universalized and cannot be. However, that does not lessen the vital point that you deserve to voice your opinion like everyone else. Purposely demeaning other people for simply having a different morality or opinion is not necessary. The ability to object against society and other individual is what makes you an individual, but this objection doesn't need the taint of moralizing, since its an extra layer of violence that isn't necessary to express yourself.

I disagree. Demeaning other people for having a different morality is certainly necessary. After-all, you said yourself that we as a race are pushing for an equal world - unless we judge people harshly based on universal moral standers, how can we possibly achieve this? Similarly in Elite: Dangerous, if we wish to achieve a cohesive community, we must judge each other on our own moral code - those who do not assist in creating a fair community will be judged by everyone who disagrees with their actions

Reason with people, understand them, see where they are coming from. Know you interests, interpret other people's interests, then compromise.

Perhaps one day people will call "PvP griefers," and "PvE carebear" as just players, perhaps there is no need to assign a title with the intent to demean an individual or a collective group of people.

Of course, this is an ideal, but the process of becoming and reaching for the ideal has been the pursuit of many political system as of late, in comparison to the ancient time where there were fixated forms to discover.

"Compromise" is the last word I'd use to describe alleged griefers' response to allegations that they're griefing. Some have even stated that they are griefers, yet made no effort to compromise or understand other people's points of view.

It is an ideal, you're right. The only people impeding on it are those who cause the problem in the first place - griefers.
 
Ramming in this game is just silly, ships slamming into each other at over 200m/s and the commander inside shrugging it off like nothing happened... needs to be adressed imho, breaks pretty much any ties to reality...
 
If you moved to, say, Saudi Arabia (where it isn't against the law for a man to beat his wife) would you automatically assume the frame-of-mind that beating your wife is a moral act? I'd wager not.

This demonstrates that morals are not just a social construct, but instead something rooted deep within the individual human psyche.
Following your reasoning, we can conclude one of two things,
1 -Saudi Arabia's population is an exception to the "rule",
or,
2- Saudi Arabian population don't have an human psyche.
 
Last edited:
Following your reasoning, we can conclude one of two things,
1 -Saudi Arabia's population is an exception to the "rule",
or,
2- Saudi Arabian population don't have an human psyche.

Or we assume that the Saudis that exhibit domestically violent behavior lack morals in that regard.
 
I disagree. I can quite easily retain my individuality whether I choose to defect from society or not; after-all, no human is the same as any other. Society is just a collection of individuals - agreeing with their collection of peoples does not make them any less of an individual. The individual is a prerequisite of society, remember, so to express this point that people can defect from society is needless as it's a necessary truth.

Only if people can maintain their individuality, if they lose it in the process of working with society, then the quality changes. Agreeing isn't the same as conforming. I speak of the danger of mindless conformity.

Adding to what I just said, there isn't actually such thing as "societal moral and stipulation" as such a thing is just an agreement between individuals. As the individual is a prerequisite to society, the individual morals are a prerequisite to this phantom "societal moral and stipulation". Thus it's impossible to claim that society's morals or worth more than the individual's.

You may interpret it in that sense, however, in the end there's no doubt that the current nomocracy nurtures a kind of morality, it just so happen that most people are happy with said morality. If you place complete emphasis on the individual, then you would perfectly understand how important it is to consider everyone intrinsically equal. To brand other people of being unequal while stressing the importance of individuality seems like quite blatant a conceited pursuit (which is pretty much every pursuit, but perhaps more blatant and demanding than others).


Incorrect.

And this is the problem that I've been pointing out since the start of this thread. Why brand other people to be "wrong" when they are merely introducing a perspective?

Individual morality is what creates such hierarchy. Again, I'll reiterate, it's individual morals that define the multitude (whether such a multitude can be proven to exist or not) so to bring morality to hierarchy makes perfect sense.

There are two layers of morality, I believe. First is the individual morality, then there is a collective morality usually understood to be culture. If individual morality is what creates a hierarchy, no one would desire their moral alignment to be placed below another's. I believe the reason why said hierarchy exists is to exercise the necessary violence for a society to function. If there is no norm nor standard, it would be quite different from what the modern society appears to be.


Actually, yes it does. As societal morals are merely an agreement between individual morals, your moral compass is as valued in society as anyone else's. If you disagree with it, speak it as a voice among society. As society is a collection of individuals, as is a bridge a collection of metal beams and cables - were a metal beam to bend, or a cable to snap, the bridge would be substantially weaker and fall apart. Your individuality matters. If you think that a man beating a woman is wrong you have every right to say so.
Agreed.

To say that domestic violence shares equivalence with charity suggests something rather scary, philosophically. It has been argued, and still is, that morals don't exist - they're a phantom of our emotions. However, in this discussion it's necessary that we assume morals exist as it is the entire foundation of that so-called "societal moral and stipulation" you were talking about. Also, the last part of that suggests that your arguments are rooted in nothing other than the will to be different - have you heard of the man who built his house on sand?

It is scary to you, as you expressed. In this discussion, I've made my stance very clear from the beginning, that morality exists, but it isn't intrinsic. I have not heard the man who built his house on sand. My arguments are rooted from the concept of aesthetic education and reconciliation as illustrated by Schiller, Whitman, and Ranciere. Being different is a given, everyone is diverse when examined.


Precisely. You claim that actions are actions and that to exercise domestic violence is no better/worse than charity, yet you have the morality to warn this man/woman that their actions may land them in a bad place (so to potentially save that man/woman from harm?). If you were serious about your claim that there is just "actions" you'd have no reason to tell the man/woman anything; it'd be no more/less wrong of you to handcuff the abusive man/woman and execute them than to warn them of the potential danger their actions may land them in. Thus, from that, I can deduce that even though you claim to have no moral affinity, you still act in a way to to help someone (which is a primal feature of morality).

This is a matter of interpretation. It's identical to the argument for and against the existence of altruism. Some argue that people do indeed help others not for conceited reasons, some argue that the gratification from helping people is what people are after when they help people, therefore they are also selfish. You can probably infer that I am in support of the latter argument, and I am.

This, if anything reinforces my point. An act is an act until someone gives it form and interpret it, you interpret it to be my instinctual moral obligation, but for me it's nothing more than a personal bias that has no moral attachment. In the sense that I enjoy reinforcing and fiddle with given regulations and nomocracy, also that as a personal bias, I want the said "wife beater" to stop. This goes back to the human nature of obtaining pleasure and avoiding pain, I merely do what is pleasurable. If we say that doing what one feels pleasurable is a morality, then I suppose people can make it a morality. I don't necessary subscribe to its categorization and feel that it misrepresents my being, thus it really circles around the argument whether perception dictates truth. To me, it dictates personal truth, and my belief is that I do not operate on a "moral" system.


If there is nothing more than "actions" why do you care about providing equality for all? And if you are in-fact serious about providing equality for all why are you so eagerly defending people who have clearly acted in a very unfair way, in Elite: Dangerous?

Actions are carried out after desires, desire is rationalized by Bentham's felicific calculus. What is "unfair" is nothing more than a mere perception, and that includes my perspective, as well. Therefore I would like to uphold that equivalence since it it pleasurable.

Morality is very relevant. As I said earlier, it is individual morality that shapes the very "societal morals" that you were addressing earlier. I disagree with the notion that to be moral = to be violent. You'll often find that the most moral of us are pushing for a less violent world. So, to claim that pushing morals = promoting violence is laughable.

I believe you understood my statement with your personal bias, which happens to anyone and everyone. But allow me to clarify. When we give form to matters, we are exerting force and dominating things. This is a concept spoken by Emerson, Nietzsche, Weber and Foucault. When we perceive something, and the notion emerge in our consciousness, we have already exercised violence by giving said matters form through our lens, or biases. It already distort its original self.

By existing, one is forcing others to acknowledge one's presence because one takes and occupy form, existence is a violence to a degree, as well. Some of this violence is inevitable, but I see moralizing as an unnecessary expansion of violence.

Thus promoting any morality is an exercise of violence. Of course, my view on morality shares the same violence, but in an incorporating sense. As Whitman puts it "I am large, I contain multitude."

It isn't up to you, nor me, to decide whether morals are an absolute necessary existence. It is impossible to prove whether morals are a creation of the mind or whether they're a universal set of laws that govern us all. So, unless you're prepared to defend your views that morals aren't absolute against legendary philosophers such as Emanuel Kant, I'd be prepared to dismiss your view as it's nothing more than an opinion - a baseless one at that.

Do you know of the liar's paradox and its association with Kant's categorical imperative?

I think it's perfectly fine to have someone you idolize and favor, but when you establish them as the absolute authority, I believe that is quite narrow-minded.

There are many arguments against and criticizing Kant, just as there are criticisms and objection toward anyone. I have a philosophy minor, and a theory-focused political science major, I am very well-versed in terms of philosophy. I am prepared to argue against any views, but that doesn't mean I'll reject them or view them as inferior, and most certain, I will not dismiss them as baseless opinions.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." --Aristotle. The Constructive Empiricism in philosophy of science also support this idea, I personally believe it is a great way to interact with the world and the people that live in it.

Everything is a matter of opinion, since they are all based on assumptions and perception, merely layered on top of one another to the point where people don't seem to be able to distinguish them, or are willing to identify them anymore. There are many famous philosophers arguing against fundamentalism, such as Cartwright and Feminine Empiricism.

You are absolutely entitled to dismiss and classify things to be baseless, as anyone else is capable of doing the same. However, being able to tolerate the view of what is foreign and different and reconciliate on said diversity seem to be difficult for most.

No one is able to prove anything absolutely, which is the beauty in this world, yet people proceed to forcefully impose their values upon others without much consideration instead of admiring the diversity, I find it quite unfortunate.[/QUOTE]

The long string of contradictions in your response is perhaps thickest here. You claim that actions are actions and hold no moral value, yet you appear to be condemning war. Why? Because your morals tell you that war is bad. But I thought actions are actions? So, even though you suggest that morality inherited from society is dangerous, you use your morality (which I can only assume you inherited from society) to condemn war. It begs the question: are you yourself even sure of what your views are?

I am using the example to appeal to you, since you seem to be rooted in a certain morality. What is confusing here is that an act can be categorized as anything, let it be moral, amoral, immoral, or anything. However, when reduced, it is a mere act.

Law created by society is a necessary evil, people can claim that it has moral values, others can deny it. Morality when weaponized, is worse than law in my opinion.



As I've said, it's not up to you nor I to decide what exactly morals are. Philosophers far smarter than you and I have debated that for centuries, so let's not even try and go there.

Intelligence is quite subjective, as well. If philosophers can debate it, why can't everyone else debate it, as well? Since everyone is merely expressing their opinion, what is the harm in doing so? It seems as if you are quite evasive on the subject, is it possible that you do not have a system of your own or a system you subscribe to?

When I said that morality is what sets us apart from animals, I was not voicing my own opinion. I was simply saying that that is what some thing, since humans clearly have a far wider range of emotive expressions and morals than animals - some animals (dolphins, for example) do express some extent of morality and a sense of right and wrong. Why? Who knows. Let's leave it to the marine biologists.

I think you did not fully understand the point I was stressing. We are using human-made categories and forms to judge non-humans. Or even more intrinsic, we are using the standard created by one to judge another, is there really accuracy in that?

You may claim that humans have a wider range of emotive expressions and morals, that is your opinion, and I respect it. However, leaving things to the "experts" do not exactly make this debate productive. Similarly, in debate competition, one does not approach the debate without any ideas or information prepared.

Yes, you're correct. It is up to me. Thank you for helping me disregard the common griefer defense of "FDev say it's okay". Just because they say it is okay doesn't mean it is.

You are free to believe that, but labeling players as "griefers" does not help the situation in my opinion. There are acts disadvantageous to you, and there are acts advantageous to you, it just happens to be the former and you're trying to pursue your interest by prohibiting the "griefers'" interest. There's nothing more than a conflict of interest here.

Just to point out, almost the entirety of the British Justice System is based off of the moral "laws" put forwards by the Bible. If they are allowed to judge others based on morals, why can't I? Is the British Justice System exercising violence on people? That poor who was convicted for life - I really feel he has been violated by the British Justice System.

If you insist that your morality is the basis for your judgement and it is necessary, you are free to do so. However, it does not seem very productive to me, which is why I suggest otherwise. I don't see harm in expressing opinions.

Your argument here can be reduced to absurdity fairly easily. Humans use morals to judge other people on a daily, hourly, perhaps second-ly basis. That drunk you looked at on the train and thought "what a disgrace" or "poor man, I should help him" - morals.

One has to "judge" in order to perceive, indeed. However, this judgement does not have to assign hierarchy, you freely choose to assign hierarchy from what I understand. And I believe it is not necessary.

Are you seriously suggesting that using morals to protect people from murderers and rapists is akin to exercising violence?

In a philosophical sense, I can. Murderers and rapists are people who utilize instruments happiness that are usually prohibited by society, most knowingly commit "crime" because of the pleasure they obtain from it trumps the punishment, which again can be reasoned from Bentham's felicific calculus. As Utilitarianism clearly delineated, punishment is "evil" in itself. In the sense that in order to secure a society we find comfortable living in, we are sacrificing other people's comfort and happiness.

Of course, this concept can be hard to understand due to the incessant coercion forced onto people connecting these kind of individuals to diabolic descriptions. However, when considered intrinsically, they are people, as well, merely fancying different instruments to the same intrinsic happiness that everyone chases after. Are they dangerous to people that need to be sacrificed in order to complete their instruments? Of course, which is why as a gregarious race, we outlawed these instruments. There is no need to assign moral to these actions. They are prohibited acts not because they are somehow intrinsically wrong, but rather it will create maximum prosperity (or utility) for people other than themselves.

If anything I would like to thank them for sacrificing themselves so we can live relatively safer.

I disagree. Demeaning other people for having a different morality is certainly necessary. After-all, you said yourself that we as a race are pushing for an equal world - unless we judge people harshly based on universal moral standers, how can we possibly achieve this? Similarly in Elite: Dangerous, if we wish to achieve a cohesive community, we must judge each other on our own moral code - those who do not assist in creating a fair community will be judged by everyone who disagrees with their actions

And what happens exactly when one launches a moral crusade on another? Is this sort of cultural conflict really necessary? Is your very existence threatened by the diversity of morality? If it is, go ahead, you are your own individual and is capable of exercising discretion.

"Compromise" is the last word I'd use to describe alleged griefers' response to allegations that they're griefing. Some have even stated that they are griefers, yet made no effort to compromise or understand other people's points of view.

That's when you coerce them into compromising, I have no interest in bemusing people like Saint Augustine in his early chapters of writing, which he does clarify later on.

It is an ideal, you're right. The only people impeding on it are those who cause the problem in the first place - griefers.

And the "griefers" can say the exact same thing back to you, what then?

Oh right, war, and it's a great thing indeed. Hold tyranny, exterminate the undesired, , people cry for freedom, evolution comes around the corner, democracy is established, elites emerge, democratic despotism follows, aristocracy turns into oligarchy, oligarchy centralizes into tyranny, exterminate the undesired...

How long before humanity come to admire this wonderful cycle?

P.S.

I suggest you use less derogatory terms against your conversing partner and have a little bit more faith in said partner's knowledge in the relevant field of the discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

Or we assume that the Saudis that exhibit domestically violent behavior lack morals in that regard.

And what if said population returns that argument back at you?

What if they claim you lack morals?

What then?

Exterminate them to prove your supremacy?
 
Last edited:

I'll stop you there.

Although it doesn't apply entirely to this case, I'll take inspiration from a famous quote of Mark Twain, and exit the discussion here.

I'd like to be friendly, but reading your arguments and responding to them is like deciphering code.

Have a good day :)
 
I'll stop you there.

Although it doesn't apply entirely to this case, I'll take inspiration from a famous quote of Mark Twain, and exit the discussion here.

I'd like to be friendly, but reading your arguments and responding to them is like deciphering code.

Have a good day :)

Very well then, good day.
 
That the scenario itself is ludicrous, and difficult-to-impossible because of the way the game works is beside the point.

It is the point though.

I forget the Latin term people throw about for arguments like this but you're using an extreme / impossible example to prove a point.

It doesn't advance the argument other than to highlight one very extreme, specific & rare scenario.
 
wow you two certainly make for a brilliant read
comparing real life beating of women to elite dangerous and its problems?...

it is a computer game...it is not real....people in multiplayer will act out there fantasies and be a monster...just like in a good old single player game......its meant to be a escape.


why is the world gone so PC mad?.....


the only real world comparison i can think of to relate to ED is "survival of the fittest"...."dog eat dog"


also when i get in from a hard days graft my wife kindly puts my dinner on the table for me....otherwise she gets the john wayne look...(joking/open minded sense of humor)
 
Every time someone brings up "griefing" in a thread, they ALWAYS confuse it with murder. Here's FDev's stance on murder (link):
Michael Brookes said:
While the thread is closed I can post a few comments. We have no intention of preventing murder within the game, that is valid gameplay choice - however there should be consequences for such actions which the game needs some tightening on. For 1.1 the following changes will be in place which will help alleviate these situations:

- Dumbfire missiles are too overpwoered - these will be balanced down.
- Point Defense Turrets shouldn't be able to trigger station response
- Shield cells too powerful - these will be balanced down
- Docking will be revoked if you're marked as hostile by the station

We'll continue to monitor and balance as needed and discussion like this is useful for us - without the name calling of course!

Thanks

Michael
If someone kills you, it isn't griefing. It's murder, a legitimate gameplay choice.

Now, if someone uses an exploit to clip through the back of a station and kill you inside a station while they're no-clip exploiting through said station - that's griefing, and the only case (to my knowledge) of someone getting banned for "griefing".

Someone murdering you in space is just normal gameplay.
 
Or we assume that the Saudis... behavior lack morals in that regard.

In any case, you are wrong -Islam forbids wifebeating. In fact, wifebeating is found in all cultures...in India, 60% of men admit to wife-beating. For European women aged 16-44 violence in the home is the primary cause of injury and death, more lethal than road accidents and cancer. Between 25% and 50% of women are victims of this violence. In the USA, a FBI report stated that 40% of women killed were murdered by their partners.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there is such a thing as "griefing" in this game. You can do whatever you want, but perhaps the consequences of apparently unwarranted hostile actions should have greater and immediate consequences.

However, ramming player ships to avoid getting attacked by station defenses is an EXPLOIT. You should be suspended or banned for doing it.
No you can't, that is just an excuse used by many people to justify being a moron. It is also impossible to program for every eventuality. RL is a sand box that you can do what you want, you can go into school and start randomly shooting people if you want, but there are consequences.

Going around and slaughtering people for the fun of it, is completely consequence free at the moment and this is something that the dev team will have to address rather soon.
 
No you can't, that is just an excuse used by many people to justify being a moron. It is also impossible to program for every eventuality. RL is a sand box that you can do what you want, you can go into school and start randomly shooting people if you want, but there are consequences.

Going around and slaughtering people for the fun of it, is completely consequence free at the moment and this is something that the dev team will have to address rather soon.

Well said.
 
Every time someone brings up "griefing" in a thread, they ALWAYS confuse it with murder.
Osterich manoeuvre - nope, not EVERY TIME - the situations that I have seen reported are varied in events and most that seem to be anything like griefing incidents typically do not provide enough information to determine the status either way. However, it is not OUR responsibility to determine if a given reported case is actually griefing or not but rather FD's and they are not obligated to make their rulings a matter of public record.

If someone kills you, it isn't griefing. It's murder, a legitimate gameplay choice.
If the circumstances fit, it can be griefing. You are only right in the sense that murder in itself is not griefing but griefing does normally involve murder as part of a pattern of behaviour.

Now, if someone uses an exploit to clip through the back of a station and kill you inside a station while they're no-clip exploiting through said station - that's griefing, and the only case (to my knowledge) of someone getting banned for "griefing".
That is not griefing, that is an exploit and something else entirely (exploits and griefing are not directly related and each can occur with or without the other)
---
Griefing is a pattern of behaviour...
---
I think the key note point here is that murder penalties are too light and FD seems to agree on this point, thus if anyone is expecting the current situation with light penalties for murder to persist they will most likely get a nasty wake up call.
---
Note though that they said no intention of "preventing" murder, but the implication about increasing penalties for it is that they intend to "discourage" it through game mechanics.
---
As for the OP's usage of the term "griefer", it may actually be an appropriate use of the term if the murderer is camping at Hutton and killing people BEFORE they can dock... It is an exceptional case there since the journey to Hutton is an unusually long one (well over an hour) and there are plenty of alternate opportunities to attack people closer to the entry point of the system. It is spiteful in the extreme to do what is being described. However, under normal circumstances where the journey to the station is measurable in minutes or seconds the situation would be considered at worst ganking.
---
The potential for station camping was one of the things that really put me off initially looking at ED and the rules surrounding it probably need to be tightened as well. We have strict docking zone loitering rules and there should probably be station loitering rules for the no-fire zones as well. Employing such rules would probably further lessen the risks of station camping with the intent to grief/gank players. Blockades can still be operated but that would require blockaders to interdict players en route which is a much more reasonable way to engage in such activities.
 
Last edited:
I think the key note point here is that murder penalties are too light and FD seems to agree on this point, thus if anyone is expecting the current situation with light penalties for murder to persist they will most likely get a nasty wake up call.

I admire your optimism. Whilst I 100% agree that murder (and crime in general) needs to be reviewed FDev said they would tighten it back in Jan after 1.1.

9 months later ....
 
Last edited:
I admire your optimism. Whilst I 100% agree that murder (and crime in general) needs to be reviewed FDev said they would tighten it back in Jan after 1.1.

9 months later ....
They changed crime and punishment in v1.3 as I recall by making it so that bounties could not be paid off by the offender (or at least not as easily - before the change you could clear bounties via the Pilot's Federation rep) which was a positive move in one sense.
---
Any changes to such things are likely to be only done with great care and I suspect we will not see any major changes in that area till v2.1 at the earliest if I were to guess.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom