I think you think I'm putting more faith in it than I actually am. It's a useful indicator & pretty vague (as you say). Although not as vague as your link
Open play trolls
- Thread starter Mcfuzz
- Start date
I think you think I'm putting more faith in it than I actually am. It's a useful indicator & pretty vague (as you say). Although not as vague as your link
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
I think you think I'm putting more faith in it than I actually am. It's a useful indicator & pretty vague (as you say). Although not as vague as your link
What do you think it is a useful indicator of?
The link is very clear and concise.
I don't recall saying anything was vague.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
Congrats guys, over 1000 posts!
Can't we just agree to play in the modes that suit our playstyles? If you don't want to be shot at by other players, then don't play in Open. Open players who do shoot at other players, just don't complain if your shooting at other players causes them to stop playing in open.
And no, calling people who don't want to be shot at names doesn't actually convince people to be shot at.
Can't we just agree to play in the modes that suit our playstyles? If you don't want to be shot at by other players, then don't play in Open. Open players who do shoot at other players, just don't complain if your shooting at other players causes them to stop playing in open.
And no, calling people who don't want to be shot at names doesn't actually convince people to be shot at.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
I think it is you that is trying to twist mine. If you disagree with Bartle's principles fair enough, I think they're pretty good & have stood the test of time. The vagueness comes from the overall trends, which was why I posted the link this time anyway. If you recall I said most players were griefers to some degree, and someone questioned that, hence the link.
Best post in thread...... now that we have a definitive answer can this be locked?
You are picking some very low hanging fruit today Bob
I'm not even going to bother arguing that point. Let's just accept I'm right & move on
Last edited:
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
You claimed I said something I did not.
That is right up there in text, with all due respect.
I am simply asking you questions now.
What exactly do you think it is a useful indicator of?
What exactly do you think has stood the test of time?
This is all related to your reification above.
I will refer you to my previous statement about you reading more into it than I am. If I put up some justification I'm pretty well going to just repeat Bartle's words, less well than he did. So read into it whatever worst case scenario you want. earlier in this thread a few of us did the test, including Besieger, who was a little miffed to discover it put him down primarily as an Explorer, Killer second.
If you would care to take the time to go back over the past few pages of this thread it's there for you to read & interpret as you wish, including to take umbrage.
Actually, no - I would prefer people behave appropriately, if they can not then they should be forced to mend their ways or be banned permanently. That is not about wanting people to suffer, that is about appropriate justice.
Wanting people to suffer is a sociopathic trait - not a normal trait of players in general.
Last edited:
So killing another player is not behaving appropriately?
Dosn't that make your "predator" friend a sociopath?
Hmm not even a criminal IRL? You see a criminal steal a handbag, you may not be in a position to directly help but you want the reprobate to receive their comeuppance. You want them to pay, right? The feeling I am describing is pretty typical behaviour.
I think you are imagining I believe everyone is primarily a griefer, and that's evidently not the case I agree, very few would watch that criminal steal the handbag & laugh at the suffering of the victim. Some would feel compassion for the criminal & want to help them lead a better life/reform too, I empathise with that trait, after they have been caught (in my case).
So it's a matter of degrees. I score low for griefing on the Bartle test (for what it's worth), even lower for sociability. Primarily I'm an Achiever, which lines up with my Triple Elite take a combat Corvette to Beagle Point because it's there kind of thing.
Now my view is inevitably tainted by my low social score, I'm not really interested in group activities or the people that choose that path, it also means I don't really mind whether I'm popular or not. I just say what I think & sometimes others agree. Often they don't. That's not being a griefer, that's just not being all that social
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
I'm not taking umbrage or anything of the sort.
Spare me the nonsense.
Also, I'm actually asking you questions.
That's not reading into anything.
It's giving you the opportunity to explain your position.
That's precisely because I don't want to want to misrepresent your position or make any assumptions.
Since it's something you posted so often "it's on your google homepage as a frequently accessed site",
I just thought you'd be able to discuss it...
Seems you have never pondered any of the questions I posed, despite sharing that piece so often.
That's too bad.
Your other post is clearly self-contradictory.
By all means go into some detail about what you think of the situation. I don't need an opportunity to explain my position, if I felt it necessary I would have already done so.
Look at the title of the thread we are in. My stance is fairly neutral, and boils down to 'game needs griefers, but the right amount', you have not explained yours. Please, go ahead & put your position across, as many others have rather than thrashing out the minutiae.
Playing how you like has consequences. What you describe as a contradiction is just the result of those consequences.
There are patterns of behaviour that go beyond the pale - griefing and habitual ganking among them - PvP killing in-game in itself is not the issue.
Nope - they actually have empathy, they do not go out of their way to make people suffer. Consider it the difference between a frenetic predator killing everything they can (your apparent interpretation) and that of a selective skilled hunter.
Last edited:
I do believe in an eye for an eye, but would prefer not poking out eyes.
The thing is, in this context - the griefers/habitual-gankers are closer to terrorists than thieves.
According to Bartle I am EASK and based on what you are saying I would guess you are AEKS. I am not 100% convinced the Bartle test is indicative of anything though.So it's a matter of degrees. I score low for griefing on the Bartle test (for what it's worth), even lower for sociability. Primarily I'm an Achiever, which lines up with my Triple Elite take a combat Corvette to Beagle Point because it's there kind of thing.
Now my view is inevitably tainted by my low social score, I'm not really interested in group activities or the people that choose that path, it also means I don't really mind whether I'm popular or not. I just say what I think & sometimes others agree. Often they don't. That's not being a griefer, that's just not being all that social
Griefing is not synonymous with in-game killing, griefing and habitual-ganking do involve in-game killing but in-game killing is not inherently griefing or ganking.
Last edited:
There are patterns of behaviour that go beyond the pale - griefing and habitual ganking among them - PvP killing in-game in itself is not the issue.
Nope - they actually have empathy, they do not go out of their way to make people suffer. Consider it the difference between a frenetic predator killing everything they can (your apparent interpretation) and that of a selective skilled hunter.
Can you give an example of how people "suffer" in a video game?
Oh no, did you really have to ask that?
Suffering does not have to be physical - For example: Mental abuse is still abuse and in some ways can be considered worse than physical abuse.