Research on Griefing - a few excerpts

[Rampant]

What is there to "not believe?" You don't "believe" my opinion? That's kind of funny seeing as how I'm simply adding 1+1 and coming up with a sum of 2, a line of deductive reasoning that would surely appeal to your aeronautical engineering trained brain. Players who exclusively inhabit group or solo at present are already flooding the forums with their complaints of griefers & assorted bad people; why would a new mode change that? These people already have the ability to avoid the people they find despicable/moronic/deplorable/unenlightened, yet here we are.

I don't believe your observation is correct. That is all. Although I agree that there are complaints on the forum, I do not believe that these complaints are initiated by players who are not in Open at the time (or on a rare occasion in a group that has rules that are being deliberately perverted for the sake of deliberate griefing).

I simply don't put any credibility in your assertion that it would be "inhabitants of a new mode" that would be "bitterly complaining".

That just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

So I don't tend to believe that you think it would be true because there is no sense in it, rather I would tend to believe that you wrote is to support some other agenda (perhaps: FDev shouldn't make a PvE mode because there will still be the same amount of complaints so it isn't worthwhile making a PvE mode just to stem the flow of complaints).

In sum, I don't believe that you believe that complaints would be made by events that took place in a properly embodied PvE mode, because that would appear to make no sense or have any existing objective evidence to support your opinion.

To my knowledge, all complaints are precipitated by what happens in Open, or on the odd occasion, by griefers entering a PvE group for the sole intention of griefing. And all complaints made by players who experience these things first hand. It appears to me that more often than not they do not fully understand that avoiding the players responsible is fully possible. At least not without other expected disadvantages. Many players still do not know of Mobius. Mainly new players, which are a particular target for seal clubbing, so I understand their lack of knowledge. It is logical and excusable for any individual with any semblance of empathy - which is back on topic. (Also - the block function is useless until you know who to block...)

I would agree that then you do get other players joining these threads. From a number of viewpoints in all sides of the discussion. But I don't agree that players who would play in a well designed PvE mode would then initiate complaints about things happening in other modes. That would appear to me to be a found less claim.

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Snarfbuckle]

What might be considered griefing in one area of a game may even be an intended function or mechanic in another area.

I can agree to that part at least.

Some people defend their actions due to a game lacking mechanics stopping them, making their actions legitimate according to their point of view.

- A missing mechanic or a bug allowing said action does not constitute accepted or intended behaviour
- A poorly designed mechanic or unintended behavior by players not anticipated by the developers does not mean the behavior or action is accepted or intended

A good example is Elite's poorly designed and/or enforced security status of systems. When every system in Open is basically Anarchy as players are concerned and law enforcement are useless - and the situation is barely better in solo then one can wonder what Frontier Development mean by "high" security...

 

[Rampant]

I can agree to that part at least.

Some people defend their actions due to a game lacking mechanics stopping them, making their actions legitimate according to their point of view.

- A missing mechanic or a bug allowing said action does not constitute accepted or intended behaviour
- A poorly designed mechanic or unintended behavior by players not anticipated by the developers does not mean the behavior or action is accepted or intended

A good example is Elite's poorly designed and/or enforced security status of systems. When every system in Open is basically Anarchy as players are concerned and law enforcement are useless - and the situation is barely better in solo then one can wonder what Frontier Development mean by "high" security...

I absolutely agree with you. One example is ramming. It is a valid tactic in combat, etc. However, it is acknowledged by FDev as an exploit where station ramming is concerned. Basically, station ramming is griefing. End of. No, they are not playing at being police (by getting their ships destroyed? Please). 100% out-and-out intentional griefing.

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Shinji Ikari]

I can agree to that part at least.

Some people defend their actions due to a game lacking mechanics stopping them, making their actions legitimate according to their point of view.

- A missing mechanic or a bug allowing said action does not constitute accepted or intended behaviour
- A poorly designed mechanic or unintended behavior by players not anticipated by the developers does not mean the behavior or action is accepted or intended

A good example is Elite's poorly designed and/or enforced security status of systems. When every system in Open is basically Anarchy as players are concerned and law enforcement are useless - and the situation is barely better in solo then one can wonder what Frontier Development mean by "high" security...

Griefing is one of those words that need a more clear definiton as people have different concepts of it.

 

[Rampant]

Griefing is one of those words that need a more clear definiton as people have different concepts of it.

Post #321 makes a good fist of it.

And I would tend to disagree that it needs a confined description, mainly because whatever concise description you care to come up with, a griefer will always try to use those words against you by using some disingenuous deliberate misinterpretation of the "definition" to justify the griefing, in the full knowledge that what they did was just to rile someone out of game and then lying about it afterwards with "justification". Sadly, it's what jerks do, and the very reason I'd avoid an explicit definition, so I'd always go with the no-exhaustive and more open definition...

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Post #321 makes a good fist of it.

And I would tend to disagree that it needs a confined description, mainly because whatever concise description you care to come up with, a griefer will always try to use those words against you by using some disingenuous deliberate misinterpretation of the "definition" to justify the griefing, in the full knowledge that what they did was just to rile someone out of game and then lying about it afterwards with "justification". Sadly, it's what jerks do, and the very reason I'd avoid an explicit definition, so I'd always go with the no-exhaustive and more open definition...

Yours Aye

Mark H

Oh, I mean a forum definition of griefer or griefing relevant to the context in Elite.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Oh, I mean a forum definition of griefer or griefing relevant to the context in Elite.

Each game might need a definion to what constitutes as griefing or action against the spirit of the game from developers.

 

[TheSynopticVision]

Post #321 makes a good fist of it.

And I would tend to disagree that it needs a confined description, mainly because whatever concise description you care to come up with, a griefer will always try to use those words against you by using some disingenuous deliberate misinterpretation of the "definition" to justify the griefing, in the full knowledge that what they did was just to rile someone out of game and then lying about it afterwards with "justification". Sadly, it's what jerks do, and the very reason I'd avoid an explicit definition, so I'd always go with the no-exhaustive and more open definition...

Yours Aye

Mark H

This is true. In my September post I had proposed this as a definition, hoping to include all the right things (and exclude all the wrong ones):

A “griefer” is a player who intentionally and systematically kills other players -- often people that are underpowered, unexperienced, and/or not outfitted for combat -- without any in-game justification, and merely because of out-of-game reasons -- mostly the personal enjoyment derived from causing harm or distress to others (“harvesting salt”).


But alas, many people decided that everything else I had written was pointless because they thought this definition did not apply to them/to griefers in general.

But of course, this definition would not apply to, say, Minecraft griefers, nor would it apply to Counterstrike griefers.

As a matter of fact, I am not sure that there can be griefing in a game like CS. Where killing is the sole aim of a game, PKing is not griefing -- it is playing the game. As I said to some guy I was having a similar debate a few weeks back: I play quite a bit of Friday the 13th, where I quite literally hunt and slaughter other players/player avatars. Am I a griefer there? No. Context matters.

 

[Han_Zen]

This is true. In my September post I had proposed this as a definition, hoping to include all the right things (and exclude all the wrong ones):

A “griefer” is a player who intentionally and systematically kills other players -- often people that are underpowered, unexperienced, and/or not outfitted for combat -- without any in-game justification, and merely because of out-of-game reasons -- mostly the personal enjoyment derived from causing harm or distress to others (“harvesting salt”).


But alas, many people decided that everything else I had written was pointless because they thought this definition did not apply to them/to griefers in general.

But of course, this definition would not apply to, say, Minecraft griefers, nor would it apply to Counterstrike griefers.

As a matter of fact, I am not sure that there can be griefing in a game like CS. Where killing is the sole aim of a game, PKing is not griefing -- it is playing the game. As I said to some guy I was having a similar debate a few weeks back: I play quite a bit of Friday the 13th, where I quite literally hunt and slaughter other players/player avatars. Am I a griefer there? No. Context matters.

Don't know the exact game mechanics in CS, but I have played a lot of Battlefield. We had plenty of griefers(we called them smack trards).

Team killers were of course the most annoying type(except for hackers of course). You also had people playing for them self, not working for the team. Typically pad hoggers, spawn snipers and kill stealers.

You end up with enough of these guys on your team, you will lose.

I gave up on the Battlefield series when they started with character building and unlockable weapons. Pure cancer for an FPS game. :/

 

[EvE4evah]

I absolutely agree with you. One example is ramming. It is a valid tactic in combat, etc. However, it is acknowledged by FDev as an exploit where station ramming is concerned. Basically, station ramming is griefing. End of. No, they are not playing at being police (by getting their ships destroyed? Please). 100% out-and-out intentional griefing.

Yours Aye

Mark H

I don't know…

I mean, I myself have died a few times to disobeying the speed limit in Private Group, since the station killed me… is the station a griefer? An NPC griefer…

 

[Ian Skippy]

I don't know…

I mean, I myself have died a few times to disobeying the speed limit in Private Group, since the station killed me… is the station a griefer? An NPC griefer…

No, because griefing implies the intent to cause grief. That is the whole point. Now, while intent can not be 100% proven, it is often quite 'likely' that some humans only act in a certain way to annoy others. NPCs dont.

 

[EvE4evah]

Post #321 makes a good fist of it.

And I would tend to disagree that it needs a confined description, mainly because whatever concise description you care to come up with, a griefer will always try to use those words against you by using some disingenuous deliberate misinterpretation of the "definition" to justify the griefing, in the full knowledge that what they did was just to rile someone out of game and then lying about it afterwards with "justification". Sadly, it's what jerks do, and the very reason I'd avoid an explicit definition, so I'd always go with the no-exhaustive and more open definition...

Yours Aye

Mark H

In order to make it reportable, punishable and deliver a code fix that possibly incapacitates it as a gameplay feature, Griefing does have to be precisely defined.

 

[EvE4evah]

No, because griefing implies the intent to cause grief. That is the whole point. Now, while intent can not be 100% proven, it is often quite 'likely' that some humans only act in a certain way to annoy others. NPCs dont.

Yeah… then again, if the assailant is RPing a Station Cop, he's in his right to ram the speedsters… I mean, the Cops already do this, MoM thankfully made them bump us on Undock recently, I took that as an acquiescence of ramming gameplay

Edit: I agree that once the rammer's intentions are to purely cause dismay, it's Griefing and punishable. Currently however, the only way to prove it is trash talking at Comms or confessions in other media…

Hence why it will be better if FD finds a way to circumvent or abolish the possibility of doing it

 

[Ian Skippy]

Yeah… then again, if the assailant is RPing a Station Cop, he's in his right to ram the speedsters… I mean, the Cops already do this, MoM thankfully made them bump us on Undock recently, I took that as an acquiescence of ramming gameplay

Sure, you can always imagine a hypothetical non-griefing background. But be honest, that is often clearly not the case. 'scramming' is an acknowledged bug, so your example is for example very weak. Cops shoot, use comms etc, and only when actual crimes are committed. Pointing towards a bug as some kind of cheap excuse for trolling people is honestly not impressive.

 

[EvE4evah]

Sure, you can always imagine a hypothetical non-griefing background. But be honest, that is often clearly not the case. 'scramming' is an acknowledged bug, so your example is for example very weak. Cops shoot, use comms etc, and only when actual crimes are committed. Pointing towards a bug as some kind of cheap excuse for trolling people is honestly not impressive.

But the way ramming is perpetuated, it's not a bug, is it. Person violates the speed limit, guy in a Sidewinder bump him, dies, Station kills the speedster. But I gotcha… I had edited the post, you seen it?

 

[Ian Skippy]

But the way ramming is perpetuated, it's not a bug, is it. Person violates the speed limit, guy in a Sidewinder bump him, dies, Station kills the speedster. But I gotcha… I had edited the post, you seen it?

No, the NPC-ramming is a bug that was previously got fixed, but has been re-introduced by accident. It is not by design, and it wont stay. The way 'trolls' use it is not something that can easily be fixed, people should just slow down when in doubt. But trolls aren't 'roleplaying cops', they are just using an in-game mechanic to irritate people.

Dont make a mistake: I am not conflating trolling with 'illegal activities'. In ED you can be a troll, if you have nothing better to do. But lets call it what it is, and if I catch someone trying it I'll make a mental note. Maybe next time that person wont be flying a cheap sidey...

I absolutely agree with you. One example is ramming. It is a valid tactic in combat, etc. However, it is acknowledged by FDev as an exploit where station ramming is concerned. Basically, station ramming is griefing. End of. No, they are not playing at being police (by getting their ships destroyed? Please). 100% out-and-out intentional griefing.

Yours Aye

Mark H

Got a quote? AFAIK it is lame behavior by annoying trolls that is nevertheless allowed.

 

[Stigbob]

In order to make it reportable, punishable and deliver a code fix that possibly incapacitates it as a gameplay feature, Griefing does have to be precisely defined.

They added the code fix already by improving the block function.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

This is true. In my September post I had proposed this as a definition, hoping to include all the right things (and exclude all the wrong ones):

A “griefer” is a player who intentionally and systematically kills other players -- often people that are underpowered, unexperienced, and/or not outfitted for combat -- without any in-game justification, and merely because of out-of-game reasons -- mostly the personal enjoyment derived from causing harm or distress to others (“harvesting salt”).


But alas, many people decided that everything else I had written was pointless because they thought this definition did not apply to them/to griefers in general.

But of course, this definition would not apply to, say, Minecraft griefers, nor would it apply to Counterstrike griefers.

As a matter of fact, I am not sure that there can be griefing in a game like CS. Where killing is the sole aim of a game, PKing is not griefing -- it is playing the game. As I said to some guy I was having a similar debate a few weeks back: I play quite a bit of Friday the 13th, where I quite literally hunt and slaughter other players/player avatars. Am I a griefer there? No. Context matters.

The OP is still horsepucky precisely because context does matter and definitions are very important when you're trying to wave around "science."
How do you even make concrete assertions about something with a nebulous definition?
Definitions are an entire category of logical fallacies. http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/define_index.htm
It's utter silliness.
It's anti-intellectualism.
That's exactly why papers include definitions.

Perhaps you could start by describing the inter- and intra-rater reliability vis a vis recognizing "griefers" in general?
I couldn't find a single relevant hit on Google scholar. (snicker)
Sounds like people are just making up stuff to me.

Ftr, around 90% of my online discussion time is spent critically examining and debating medical research and pain science, so I'd be more than glad to parse out my arguments.
It's something I do all the time.
TL;DR version is "This stuff is ridiculous."
It doesn't even pass "the sniff test."

I suspect there to be some cognitive dissonance about that.
Of course, whether or not you can discuss this honestly and rationally remains to be seen.

It's been my experience that people are often not willing to critically examine their "belief systems" but it's critical to make the distinction between beliefs and facts.
That has to start with proper definitions.
If you cannot get people to agree on that first step, surely you can see a problem?

 

[jasonbarron]

I don't know about everybody else, but I really like this Bob Lighthouse guy.

 

[Chaparral]

deleted