Research on Griefing - a few excerpts

[jasonbarron]

I think it was 2015: The year that pvp was like sexual assault and RL Murder

Then 2016: The year of PvP being like real life terrorists, or players who arent in the '84 club so dont get what ED is all about.

2017 has definitely been: the year of PvPers have serious psychological issues. I wonder what joys 2018 holds?

Full circle, apparently. I just think it's funny (haha funny as well as weird funny) how people like Danicus view not only PvPers, but themselves, too, in comparison.

 

[EvE4evah]

I think it was 2015: The year that pvp was like sexual assault and RL Murder

Then 2016: The year of PvP being like real life terrorists, or players who arent in the '84 club so dont get what ED is all about.

2017 has definitely been: the year of PvPers have serious psychological issues. I wonder what joys 2018 holds?

2018: the year of PvP finally conquering ED!!!

 

[Goose4291]

Maybe we'll go retro and call it sinful?

Full circle, apparently. I just think it's funny (haha funny as well as weird funny) how people like Danicus view not only PvPers, but themselves, too, in comparison.

2018: the year of PvP finally conquering ED!!!

Im calling it now.

2018: The year when shooting pretend Alien NPCs is like sexual assualt/murder done by people who are like RL terrorists who werent here at the start in '84 so dont get what its about, and have psychological issues.

Theyve got a whole new niche of the playerbase to feel intellectually superior over and three years plus of ammunition.

So to PvEers who like to shoot Xenos, I say....

 

[Morbad]

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

Read Sandro's comments in this thread: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...t-Obsidian-Orbital?highlight=self-lubricating

He makes several comments about how things are supposed to be that are contrary to how things are or have ever been, indicating that at least some of what's going on may technically be exploits.

It also highlights a pretty large disconnect between how the developers think certain things work and how certain things actually work. For example, stations have never given a damn how much damage you do to someone from ramming, until they actually explode. They fine you for every slice of the knife, but wait until the patient dies on the operating table to conclude an assault has occurred.

I wonder what joys 2018 holds?

Reeducation camps for players of CMDRs that don't adhere to the party line.

Which party and what they spiked the punch with will vary from poster to poster.

 

[Chaparral]

Wow guys - it's just a video game. Why so serious?

 

[EvE4evah]

Wow guys - it's just a video game. Why so serious?

Nope, buddy, just…
Nope.


Edit: you hurt my feelings [cry][sad]

 

[jasonbarron]

Wow guys - it's just a video game. Why so serious?

Was that you that I saw flying the Cobra named #metoo trying to conduct passenger rescue missions a few hours ago?

 

[Ian Skippy]

Read Sandro's comments in this thread: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...t-Obsidian-Orbital?highlight=self-lubricating

He makes several comments about how things are supposed to be that are contrary to how things are or have ever been, indicating that at least some of what's going on may technically be exploits.

It also highlights a pretty large disconnect between how the developers think certain things work and how certain things actually work. For example, stations have never given a damn how much damage you do to someone from ramming, until they actually explode. They fine you for every slice of the knife, but wait until the patient dies on the operating table to conclude an assault has occurred.

But none of that has anything to do with 'speeding trolling'. That is a mechanism that works exactly as described, and nothing Sandro says there suggests otherwise. Nevermind that it was presented in this topic that sandro literally said that speeding trolling is an exploit.

Was that you that I saw flying the Cobra named #metoo trying to conduct passenger rescue missions a few hours ago?

Really? Someone did that? [down]

 

[TheSynopticVision]

Here's another one

The OP is still horsepucky precisely because context does matter and definitions are very important when you're trying to wave around "science."

1) The OP in this thread offers NO DEFINITION. As I say it in plain english words, the definition I quote above comes from my September post, which was yes about griefing too, but tackling the issue from a completely different angle. There I was addressing the arguments used by griefers to defend themselves ("It's called Elite DANGEROUS" and "I'm just blowing your pixels"). In this post I simply highlight the fact that psychological research into griefing is an actual thing, not something made up by "salty carebears" (faulty? perhaps. But it still exist. Show me the published studies that conclude that "carebears" are delusional and we can talk about that too). So the science I "wave around" (funny that to bring some evidence to the table becomes "waving science around") are the papers I quote in this thread. What definition of griefing do they use? Probably every paper uses a slightly different one, but it's a phenomenon sufficiently well-recognized that a common denominator can be found.

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.

This is borderline incoherent, but OK. There is nothing "nebulous" about my definition, nor does is it an example of a fallacy. Could it fail to completely describe a phenomenon like griefing? Sure. Where is it lacking? Offer a better definition, go ahead. I don't see any proposal. Nice try with the "back at you" accusation of anti-intellectualism. Cute coming from someone who's doing nothing but trolling.

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.

I do not need to describe any methodology. The studies I quote aren't mine. As I said, the argument of this thread is NOT "hey peeps, gather round, I've discovered the secret psychology of griefers". But it is "hey people, you know how trolls and griefers like to make fun of people for being "armchair psychologists"? Well, there's a few examples of actual psychologists calling griefers anti-social individuals. Take a look" I'm very sorry that it "sounds like" bull to you.

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."

Oh now I see. You're a guy who regularly debates on the Internet. I apologize, I didn't realize. Now I understand that your opinion is, naturally, far far more weighty than those of people who publish in journals. Degrees and years of research are nothing compared to "debating on the internet". Your "sniff" is clearly a superior epistemic tool to set apart rubbish from Proper Research.

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?

"Cognitive dissonance" is one of those important-sounding terms that nowadays are used by everyone and their dog (FYI "cognitive dissonance" does not mean "being in bad faith", but it describes a state of having conflicting or inconsistent beliefs about a topic. You can accuse me of being prejudiced, of having an agenda, of insinuating stuff...fine. But at least use the proper words.

One last note on the "definition". This response of yours is not unlike many others i had, back in September. They go something like this: "this definition is incomplete/lacking THEREFORE the phenomenon it tries to define does not exist" and "whatever you might say about this made-up phenomenon is therefore null and void". That's a stupid inference. If a phenomenon (especially something as complex as a social phenomenon) cannot be precisely defined it means it cannot exist? Really? So, for example, I suppose that this means that before a proper definition of "workplace sexual harassment" was introduced into legislations (something relatively recent) the phenomenon didn't exist, right? (and before the usual knuckleheads creep out of the woodwork: no I am not comparing griefing to sexual assault. I am making an example to illustrate a point. Different concrete cases can be instances of the same general principle and used as analogies).

There's a number of "pro-griefing" people in this thread who made interesting comments and criticisms. You're not one of them.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I think it was 2015: The year that pvp was like sexual assault and RL Murder

Then 2016: The year of PvP being like real life terrorists, or players who arent in the '84 club so dont get what ED is all about.

2017 has definitely been: the year of PvPers have serious psychological issues. I wonder what joys 2018 holds?

I thought 2017 is the year of the loot box.

 

[Goose4291]

I dont like it when people use similar intellectual arguments to my own against me, so am going to talk down to you and disregard your sources.

Fixed that for you old chap

I thought 2017 is the year of the loot box.

Only outside the ED circle

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Fixed that for you old chap



Only outside the ED circle

But, but "Horizons"! There MUST be something "Beyond"? Yes?

 

[Rampant]

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…

Don't be absurd. (You are being intentionally absurd and don't try to deny it).

 

[Rampant]

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.

No I absolutely disagree.

In the case of station ramming - it *could* be done by FDev outside of the game. Coding can be complex to get the desired results. Instead, FDev *could* use the support ticket system to find out which one or two CMDRs are being repetitively killed by other CMDRs inside the no fire zone when piloting unshielded sidewinders. After a set number of tickets complaining of a specific CMDR, they *could issue warnings to say that this type of gameplay is deemed to be an exploit, and further stating that any more evidence being found, that the CMDR could receive a shadow-ban. They *could* do this. So, no, it is clear that a specific definition for griefing does not *need* to be derived prior to policing actions that are clearly intentional griefing.

It doesn't take a genius to know that if a single person is continuously crashing into other members of the same "insurance company", at the same car park, that first, the insurance company would begin to ask questions and further then refuse to insure said individual. The car park would also make move to ban that individual from any of its car parks, and ensure that this ban was public knowledge, in order that other drivers don't start to avoid the car park in future. This is plain and simple consequence. Just because that single consequence is lacking from the game *code*, it doesn't follow that it necessarily must be absent from the game by using other enforcement techniques.

We all intuitively know that station ramming is something that needs to be addressed, but addressing it with game code is very complex, whereas bringing a human element into the mix to identify unwanted behaviour, and provided as it can then be evidenced in the data, measures can be put in place without the need for extra complicated game code.

Cheerz

Mark H

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

Now you're being absurd again - we *know* that ramming by cops is not intended - so best not to push your absurdities any further, eh?

 

[Rampant]

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

I would prefer not to quote from private messages from the Support Team - I'm sure you understand. Yeah, people do this, but I tend to view posting quotes as verging on abuse of trust.

However, what I can do is remind everyone that in the original crime and punishment system, this station ramming was rife and in an effort to address the issue a few changes were made to directly address station ramming. Prior to the changes, but after being informed of the proposed changes, the station rammers and others surrounding them warned that they would just find ways to exploit the new system. And lo, it came to pass that after the introduction of changes to crime and punishment
a new exploit was found by the individuals that FDev were trying to dissuade from station ramming and station ramming continued to be rife.

So even after FDev stated on this very forum that station ramming was one of the issues they were trying to tackle, the individuals responsible just continued to stick two fingers up at FDev and kept on pursuing their griefing behaviour for the out-of-fun enjoyment.

Surely this is an indication that, sometimes - just sometimes - out of game measures *could* be used to tackle an unwanted exploit.

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Rampant]

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?

Problem is, Mr Lighthouse, that it isn't really for "us" to decide - that is a job for FDev. Critcally, they don't need for any of us to agree on any first step, so there is no "problem" as you summed up...

But what I *know* is that FDev do view station ramming as an unwanted exploit. Despite any absurdities that anyone can make up just to be deliberately awkward about it. (Can you factor in the deliberate obtuseness into your next post, please, because being deliberately obtuse and absurd is far, far more unconstructive than a mere lack of agreement between the differing beliefs as you posted?)

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[EvE4evah]

Don't be absurd. (You are being intentionally absurd and don't try to deny it).

For someone so knowledgeable about the game, it seems you've never powerdocked… oh Nvm, Docking Computers lol
I've accidentally killed small NPCs entering/exiting station in a big three, whilst powerdocking. Therefore I got killed by station Stupid, I know, but it's more frequent than you think… ask around

No I absolutely disagree.

In the case of station ramming - it *could* be done by FDev outside of the game. Coding can be complex to get the desired results. Instead, FDev *could* use the support ticket system to find out which one or two CMDRs are being repetitively killed by other CMDRs inside the no fire zone when piloting unshielded sidewinders. After a set number of tickets complaining of a specific CMDR, they *could issue warnings to say that this type of gameplay is deemed to be an exploit, and further stating that any more evidence being found, that the CMDR could receive a shadow-ban. They *could* do this. So, no, it is clear that a specific definition for griefing does not *need* to be derived prior to policing actions that are clearly intentional griefing.

It doesn't take a genius to know that if a single person is continuously crashing into other members of the same "insurance company", at the same car park, that first, the insurance company would begin to ask questions and further then refuse to insure said individual. The car park would also make move to ban that individual from any of its car parks, and ensure that this ban was public knowledge, in order that other drivers don't start to avoid the car park in future. This is plain and simple consequence. Just because that single consequence is lacking from the game *code*, it doesn't follow that it necessarily must be absent from the game by using other enforcement techniques.

We all intuitively know that station ramming is something that needs to be addressed, but addressing it with game code is very complex, whereas bringing a human element into the mix to identify unwanted behaviour, and provided as it can then be evidenced in the data, measures can be put in place without the need for extra complicated game code.

Cheerz

Mark H



Now you're being absurd again - we *know* that ramming by cops is not intended - so best not to push your absurdities any further, eh?

Yes ramming by cops not intended, still the RP possibility for players is nothing absurd.
Also, defining Griefing precisely is needed in order for the Devs to counter it, otherwise they'll punish vague stuff and become unfair and unreliable (punishing the same act for some and not for others).

I would prefer not to quote from private messages from the Support Team - I'm sure you understand. Yeah, people do this, but I tend to view posting quotes as verging on abuse of trust.

However, what I can do is remind everyone that in the original crime and punishment system, this station ramming was rife and in an effort to address the issue a few changes were made to directly address station ramming. Prior to the changes, but after being informed of the proposed changes, the station rammers and others surrounding them warned that they would just find ways to exploit the new system. And lo, it came to pass that after the introduction of changes to crime and punishment
a new exploit was found by the individuals that FDev were trying to dissuade from station ramming and station ramming continued to be rife.

So even after FDev stated on this very forum that station ramming was one of the issues they were trying to tackle, the individuals responsible just continued to stick two fingers up at FDev and kept on pursuing their griefing behaviour for the out-of-fun enjoyment.

Surely this is an indication that, sometimes - just sometimes - out of game measures *could* be used to tackle an unwanted exploit.

Yours Aye

Mark H

So you "won't quote from support private messages", eh?
Then I guess your statement is invalid, since said messages are PRIVATE and not PUBLIC or DISCLOSABLE, hence said policies don't exist, or are stuff that FD is afraid of disclosing? I don't know…

Problem is, Mr Lighthouse, that it isn't really for "us" to decide - that is a job for FDev. Critcally, they don't need for any of us to agree on any first step, so there is no "problem" as you summed up...

But what I *know* is that FDev do view station ramming as an unwanted exploit. Despite any absurdities that anyone can make up just to be deliberately awkward about it. (Can you factor in the deliberate obtuseness into your next post, please, because being deliberately obtuse and absurd is far, far more unconstructive than a mere lack of agreement between the differing beliefs as you posted?)

Yours Aye

Mark H

I just see cheap ripostes and no actual counterargument here…

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

It's not worth the hassle in ED. Cannot teabag. No teabag - no satisfaction.

 

[Ian Skippy]

I would prefer not to quote from private messages from the Support Team - I'm sure you understand. Yeah, people do this, but I tend to view posting quotes as verging on abuse of trust.

However, what I can do is remind everyone that in the original crime and punishment system, this station ramming was rife and in an effort to address the issue a few changes were made to directly address station ramming. Prior to the changes, but after being informed of the proposed changes, the station rammers and others surrounding them warned that they would just find ways to exploit the new system. And lo, it came to pass that after the introduction of changes to crime and punishment
a new exploit was found by the individuals that FDev were trying to dissuade from station ramming and station ramming continued to be rife.

So even after FDev stated on this very forum that station ramming was one of the issues they were trying to tackle, the individuals responsible just continued to stick two fingers up at FDev and kept on pursuing their griefing behaviour for the out-of-fun enjoyment.

Surely this is an indication that, sometimes - just sometimes - out of game measures *could* be used to tackle an unwanted exploit.

Yours Aye

Mark H

Huh? That makes zero sense, sorry. Yes, ramming people to death was unintentional. They fixed it with the speed limit. No you get killed if you ram people to death. What is currently happening is something else. You cant go around claiming the latter is an exploit, then refuse to provide any evidence for it. If it only an exploit in secret PM communications, it simply isn't an exploit. Its that simple. Its still lame, but until there is actual, open, available communication clearly stating it is an exploit, it is not. Especially in the context of the 'science OP', unverified secret info cannot really be used.

 

[TheSynopticVision]

Fixed that for you old chap

Yeah, problem is: there are no "arguments" (intellectual or not) nor "sources" in the post I reply to. And that's exactly what my response points out.
This latest comment of yours simply proves you are trolling and have no interest in civilised responses. This is the lest reply you'll get from me.