Define "Griefing" in Elite: Dangerous

[Crimson Kaim]

Just curious, what does the community understand under or connects with the term "Griefing"?


My definition would be thefollowing:

"A player continously denying the fun of other players. The actions have no ingame reasons and do not benefit the griefer or its allies in any ways. The only purpose is to cause damage to random, unspecified players without any roleplaying or ingame reason to do said action."


An example of this would be destroying beginners in LHS 3447 or ERAVATE over and over again. Another example would be to camp at Sag. A* and destroy unarmed explorers.
Anyways, the main criteria(s) are that the targeted player has to be random, griefed repetitively and that there is absoluetly no inagme or roleplaying reason to perform that action.


Obviously, this definition may vary among the community so what is your definition?

 

[Leo Sagan]

* grabs popcorn *

 

[Crimson Kaim]

* grabs popcorn *

Gimme some!

 

[EddyRockSteady]

Obviously, this definition may vary among the community so what is your definition?

The only definition that matters at the end of the day is FD's.

Does anyone know if they have provided an adequate definition? Anything in the T.O.S?

As for asking the forum community for their definition and debate, well, lol, cue the popcorn and pepsi

 

[Noob]

Right now, you're griefing the Forum.

 

[Jack Schitt]

Subjective, and therefore impossible for "the community" to define in any consistent way. As has been proven in thread after thread. I'm not a fan of pre-emptive moderation but this thread will go nowhere (or somewhere unpleasant) very quickly and I would not complain if it got locked before that has a chance to happen.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This has been attempted before: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=41362

It didn't end well.

The first personal attack on another poster will get this thread closed.

Please keep the discussion pleasant and remember to discuss the post and not the poster.

Thanks.

 

[audiodistortion]

imo

G'ing is killing clean CMDR's for fun, but the game allows it, so...

Hunting, chasing and killing wanted CMDR's is also part of the game, some may call that G'ing.

 

[crushdepth]

In b4 griefers start trying to redefine it for their own convenience...

 

[Marshall...]

Attacked relentlessly for no reason other than to cause grief on the target, is my definition.

 

[Robert Maynard]

In b4 griefers start trying to redefine it for their own convenience...

Let's not start insulting others, shall we? Just because someone's personal definition varies from one's own does not make them wrong - the definitions are personal, after all, and therefore subject to opinion.

 

[TheOnlyOne]

Blowing up the engines and generator of random commander and leave them alone.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…My definition would be thefollowing:


"A player continously denying the fun of other players. The actions have no ingame reasons and do not benefit the griefer or its allies in any ways. The only purpose is to cause damage to random, unspecified players without any roleplaying or ingame reason to do said action."
…

Like somebody else already mentioned the only definition that really matters it the one form FD - since this definition is missing there will be endless discussions about the right definition of „griefing“.


That said, my personal definition is similar to yours Crimson Kaim, just slightly harsher.


„Griefing: Any intentional player action aimed at harming other players for no obvious in-game reasons and with the main motivation to cause a negative emotional reaction from the affected player.“


Relevant parts:
- player action (no NPCs)
- harming another player
- obvious in-game reasons (obvious to the affected player, „I’m roleplaying XY“ is not a valid excuse if this role-play isn’t made obvious to the affected player.)
- main effect/motivation is to cause negative emotion


I know that many definitions require the action to be repeatedly done to the affected player to become griefing. I don’t think that this is required.




Again, the only relevant definition is the missing one form FD.

 

[sewerratuk]

Let's not start insulting others, shall we? Just because someone's personal definition varies from one's own does not make them wrong - the definitions are personal, after all, and therefore subject to opinion.

Wow, you are on top if this thread Robert, some would say you were relentless in your pursuit of it, griefing it even

 

[Robert Maynard]

Wow, you are on top if this thread Robert, some would say you were relentless in your pursuit of it, griefing it even

This thread has "potential" - and not necessarily in a good way.

Best to remind everyone to play nicely.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

The only definition that matters at the end of the day is FD's.

Does anyone know if they have provided an adequate definition? Anything in the T.O.S?

As for asking the forum community for their definition and debate, well, lol, cue the popcorn and pepsi

There is no accurate definition of FD and FD stated that they reserve the right to judge case by case upon subjective interpretation of the circumstances. So straight forward: It is a subjectively based judgement but I am so not a fan of subjective judgement which is why I wanted to ask what the general opinion about this is.

 

[crushdepth]

Let's not start insulting others, shall we? Just because someone's personal definition varies from one's own does not make them wrong - the definitions are personal, after all, and therefore subject to opinion.

This is not an insult.

 

[Ian Phillips]

There is no accurate definition of FD and FD stated that they reserve the right to judge case by case upon subjective interpretation of the circumstances. So straight forward: It is a subjectively based judgement but I am so not a fan of subjective judgement which is why I wanted to ask what the general opinion about this is.

And that won't be a subjective opinion?

 

[Crimson Kaim]

And that won't be a subjective opinion?

Ofcourse it will, unless FD invents a software that can judge by an algorythm.

The thing is though, there is no accurate definition we can follow and claim "But yo! I didn't do anything wrong!".
I would be fine with a more accurate definition to make the playground small and most improtantly provide clarification for the community.
As stated before by some other user: The only relevant definition is the missing one from FD. However, I highly doubt FD's definition would vary too much from the general average opinion of the community. For this reason I am askign around.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This is not an insult.

That very much depends on which participants you would consider to be "griefers" - and to label them as such on the forums is considered to be insulting.