Stop Name Calling

[Cosmos]

There are certain trigger words, such as carebear, that while some don't mind or even encourage, are used as a derogatory way of expressing a preference for a play style. It's these words I object to ... (And Johnty, but that's another story)

There are indeed some trigger words. We had MONTHS of hearing griefer this, and griefer that and I won't mention who created the very first thread on the topic.. but with those subject to suffering it, months of abuse, whilst not responding with the kind of vitriol levelled at them..

Yet, all of a sudden now others are using a pejorative term in response (carebear) and using the same sort of language, its apparently not good.. So one side of the 'debate' is disarmed whilst the other is given the quiet nod.

Where was the critical element back with all the griefer labelling and hysteria? It seems to me it was okay then, completely unchallenged officially, I didn't see the mods do anything about that, nor Frontier for that matter.., but now to say the word, 'carebear'.. well we can't have that can we.

I'm afraid it doesn't wash.. So, I'll be happy to never use the word carebear again on the proviso I don't hear anyone say griefer.

 

[Joe Spivey]

There are indeed some trigger words. We had MONTHS of hearing griefer this, and griefer that and I won't mention who created the very first thread on the topic.. but with those subject to it suffering it, whilst not responding with the kind of vitriol levelled at them.

Yet, all of a sudden now others are using a pejorative term in response (carebear) and using the same sort of language, its apparently not good.

Where was the critical element back with all the griefer labelling and hysteria? It seems to me it was okay then, completely unchallenged officially, but now to say the word, 'carebear'.. well we can't have that can we.

Meh, Chicken and Egg.

 

[Spook]

I suppose a "higher standard" of behaviour is expected because the ED forums are just one section within the Frontier Forums. Elite is just one revenue stream and some of the other games would appear to be aimed at a younger audience, not including Coaster Crazy in this, as that looks like it could be a right hoot.

Pity the poor parent who log's onto here, helping little Johnny find out why his pet porcupine in Zoo Tycoon keeps kicking the bucket. Only to stumble onto one of the more fractious threadnaughts.

 

[Googol]

... it's shocking how many threads seem to drift into pointless name calling, if only to try to rile the other party up. I'm not going to point fingers at any words or topics in particular that cause this, but I'm guessing te majority will know what I mean.

Basically, what I'm trying to preach is, please can forum dudes and dudettes try to get their ideas across without using these words? ...

Wow, see what you started

My 2p:

We've got a reasonable slice of the game-playing demographic on the forum, perhaps biased towards the mature (mentally and emotionally, rather than just age) end of the spectrum. I hope that this latter aspect contributes, and will continue to contribute, to the reasoned and sensible discussion that generally prevails over the name calling you refer to. To my cost, however, I have found that even something posted with good intentions can give offence if poorly worded or written in haste (my response: apologise, explain and move on).

FD rightly apply a language filter to posts in the forums they run and could, if they wanted to, block the use of the words you refer to. That they don't, IMO, is to their credit. The use of such words helps to define clearly - but sometimes also, unfortunately, entrench - the position the poster has adopted. Whether you agree with that position or not is up to you, and whether you respond in kind or through reasoned argument is again your choice. I expect, given my comments above, that most readers judge the merits of any given post by the quality of the debate rather than the exact words used, so name calling is extremely counter-productive.

I exclude from all the above, of course, intentional trolling - unfortunately that's a fact of life in any forum and needs to be dealt with rigorously at an admin level.

 

[Steve O B Have]

Can't agree with you. In my experience, "griefer" has generally been used to describe those players who intentionally cause grief to others as a form of amusement. I don't see it as a term of abuse (unless incorrectly applied). I also don't see what not using the word would achieve, apart from forcing you to use a lot more words to say exactly the same thing.

The issue isn't the word - the issue is the nature of the game, and the fact that there's huge potential for confusion over whether someone is setting out to ruin your day, or just playing as intended.

I think you've misunderstood my point - I agree with your observation for the most part except for the issue being the 'nature of the game'. In my personal opinion griefing is an accurate and appropriate term to use in exactly the context that you have mentioned. Out of that context and put into a PVP scenario when the game mechanic allows for such activities to take place because it is an intended part of the game is pejorative. Suffice to say, the term (again only in my opinion) has a place in describing accurately a scenario when used correctly.

There are indeed some trigger words. We had MONTHS of hearing griefer this, and griefer that and I won't mention who created the very first thread on the topic.. but with those subject to suffering it, months of abuse, whilst not responding with the kind of vitriol levelled at them..

Yet, all of a sudden now others are using a pejorative term in response (carebear) and using the same sort of language, its apparently not good.. So one side of the 'debate' is disarmed whilst the other is given the quiet nod.

Where was the critical element back with all the griefer labelling and hysteria? It seems to me it was okay then, completely unchallenged officially, I didn't see the mods do anything about that, nor Frontier for that matter.., but now to say the word, 'carebear'.. well we can't have that can we.

I'm afraid it doesn't wash.. So, I'll be happy to never use the word carebear again on the proviso I don't hear anyone say griefer.

Further to my comment above - where do you see 'carebear' as being an appropriate and accurate term to describe a player in a game context? Where does 'carebear' suit better than say someone that is aggrieved or potentially being irrational in their indignity. Is using 'carebear' as a term appropriately expressing that you disagree with their observations, does it explain to them why you don't feel that their views are accurate? Or perhaps what it actually does is deliberately wind them up, belittle them and label them as the unreasoning antithesis of what you might believe to be the only opinion worth having (i.e. your own)?

In my own opinion, the griefer argument was no less aggravating than the periodic "OMG you've nerfed the game" threads that pop up periodically and generate a crazy number of complaints that we as moderators subsequently have to deal with. However there was a purpose to it, it fueled discussion, it drove mechanic changes and has overall (again in my opinion) made the overall game better. 'Carebear' seems to me to be little more than a flailing attempt to make people feel bad - it is almost never accompanied by reasoned and logical discourse and only serves to flood the forums with angry argument and counter argument.

It seems like an excuse to not 'use your words' - personally I think we're all better than that.

 

[noodle]

I think you've misunderstood my point - I agree with your observation for the most part except for the issue being the 'nature of the game'. In my personal opinion griefing is an accurate and appropriate term to use in exactly the context that you have mentioned. Out of that context and put into a PVP scenario when the game mechanic allows for such activities to take place because it is an intended part of the game is pejorative. Suffice to say, the term (again only in my opinion) has a place in describing accurately a scenario when used correctly.

But there's a different between playing a game competitively, and playing it with the intention of ruining another person's fun. If someone pirates me, it's a pain, but it's part of the experience and I have no issue with it. It's not a game if there's no risk. Whereas on the other hand, if someone attacks me just for the lolz, I'm not on board with that - and I think "griefing" is the exactly correct term for that behaviour. The difficulty in ED is determining a person's intentions, because regardless of whether you think their play-style is valid within the game, it's the intentions that really determine whether someone is griefing. I don't personally think attacking people just for the fun of PvP is within the intended scope of how FD expect ED to be played (although it's inevitable), but there's a fine line between that and attacking someone just for the fun of ruining their day. But good luck working out which is which, unless a particular behaviour is consistent and persistent.

Further to my comment above - where do you see 'carebear' as being an appropriate and accurate term to describe a player in a game context? Where does 'carebear' suit better than say someone that is aggrieved or potentially being irrational in their indignity. Is using 'carebear' as a term appropriately expressing that you disagree with their observations, does it explain to them why you don't feel that their views are accurate? Or perhaps what it actually does is deliberately wind them up, belittle them and label them as the unreasoning antithesis of what you might believe to be the only opinion worth having (i.e. your own)?

This is the difference. Most people, I suspect, are intentionally using "carebear" disparagingly. Whereas most of the people who use the term "griefer" believe (regardless of whether this is really the case) that they're using a term that accurately describes the behaviour that they've been subjected to.

 

[Harold]

yeah, griefers like those writing in this topic are really annoying.

 

[Binraider]

With regards the OP, I agree, these boards are mostly a friendly place to try and have a discussion. It is easy for any of us with 20-years of expectations built up for Elite's next sequel to get a bit excitable!

Regarding the use of the terms griefer and carebear, they are merely descriptions of two perfectly valid playstyles in an open-box game, and I'm not surprised that they have crept into use here. After all I imagine many, many of us here are or have been EVE players in the last 10 years... What, with few other worthwhile Elite clones around to keep us amused!

The topic of player character piracy and how it fits into the game without upsetting the balance has been a contentious one, and probably will continue to be for the duration of ED's existence. To a certain extent this is going to be influenced by how easy it is going to be to defend a trading ship against suicide attack using ships of low value (and if it is going to be a profitable exercise or not). Piracy of this nature, I would actively expect, IF it is a profitable (albeit risky) business to be in.

Then there will always be the insane types that will take it upon themselves to go postal, just for the kick of it.

Hopefully the laws of the game will be such that persistent criminals will become fair game for bounty hunters to make a living from chasing them down.

In the interim, the safest advice is "Don't fly anything you can't afford to lose."

ED is also unusual, in that it will be offering an offline mode. This is a dangerous decision - pure "carebear" players may well never want to have the experience of online play. And Griefing against NPC's isn't going to be a popular profession for offline play. There's a risk here that by providing the option, there could be a skew in the number, and type of players that DO go for online play. ED's in game police will have to watch for this balance very, very carefully and make tweaks in case it gets out of hand.

Having played EVE in mostly as a passive-agressive carebear for years, I don't doubt that in the main, that's how I'll play ED too. But if there's cash involved I can be persuaded to bring my guns along for the right "job"...

 

[hawkenfox]

Granted, I don't expect or want the main ED experience to be a PvP arena.

At the mo the ratio of simply being attacked because you're a player and because you're there is high right now due to bugs and loop holes in the policing and consequences mechanics.

It has dropped from the levels in PB, I'm certain it will drop again.

However, some forum members appear not to be able to distinguish now from the future, and make calls for changes (as outlined). When other members counter argue the Gword gets pulled out. Then the Cword, then it all goes to 'sugar' and nothing constructive gets done.

Some of the changes may be worth discussion, but discussion implies counter argument, which can't happen if G&C are being slung about.

That is what i'm advocating against

Once again I am reminded by a post about this matter ... what's the difference when you are shot down by an AI compared to an online player ... no difference ... but it seems losing to a real human is harder to swallow for most. Like the post said, if you cannot lose to a human there is always the solo mode to keep your egos up ... I cannot agree more. Since that post I have decided not to feel terrible if some online player downed my ship... it's a game so learn to have fun ... yes even with the bugs!

Yes indeed a discussion is there so everyone could sit down have a cup of tea and exchange ideas. Fortunately most of the forum members are quite good at expressing their thoughts without spilling tea on each other's face ... I think it has to do with the avg. age band of 40yr old backers who most likely are not going to behave like teenagers.

When someone swing at you, well just don't swing back ... simple that's my rule. Every force have an equal and opposite reaction ... if you don't react there is no force .

 

[noodle]

Once again I am reminded by a post about this matter ... what's the difference when you are shot down by an AI compared to an online player ... no difference ... but it seems losing to a real human is harder to swallow for most.

I don't think it's so much being attacked by a human player, as being singled out for being a human player by other human players

 

[Cosmos]

I think you've misunderstood my point - I agree with your observation for the most part except for the issue being the 'nature of the game'. In my personal opinion griefing is an accurate and appropriate term to use in exactly the context that you have mentioned. Out of that context and put into a PVP scenario when the game mechanic allows for such activities to take place because it is an intended part of the game is pejorative. Suffice to say, the term (again only in my opinion) has a place in describing accurately a scenario when used correctly.



Further to my comment above - where do you see 'carebear' as being an appropriate and accurate term to describe a player in a game context? Where does 'carebear' suit better than say someone that is aggrieved or potentially being irrational in their indignity. Is using 'carebear' as a term appropriately expressing that you disagree with their observations, does it explain to them why you don't feel that their views are accurate? Or perhaps what it actually does is deliberately wind them up, belittle them and label them as the unreasoning antithesis of what you might believe to be the only opinion worth having (i.e. your own)?

In my own opinion, the griefer argument was no less aggravating than the periodic "OMG you've nerfed the game" threads that pop up periodically and generate a crazy number of complaints that we as moderators subsequently have to deal with. However there was a purpose to it, it fueled discussion, it drove mechanic changes and has overall (again in my opinion) made the overall game better. 'Carebear' seems to me to be little more than a flailing attempt to make people feel bad - it is almost never accompanied by reasoned and logical discourse and only serves to flood the forums with angry argument and counter argument.

It seems like an excuse to not 'use your words' - personally I think we're all better than that.

It should go without saying, nothing personal intended. And I'm quite happy to move on but need to get this off my chest..

On the whole I've tried to steer away from using the term carebear although I have ended up using it out of frustration after many months of bitter vitriol from forumites who twisted the use of the term griefer and elided it with much personal abuse towards others. Believe me, I have tried to have a sensible discussion but the insults and abuse flow in..

I can't say I think either word is helpful but having suffered MONTHS of abuse at the hands of a forum lynch mob, with endless abuse and personal sniping - and I can site examples if required - eventually I ask myself why am I sticking to the spirit of the forum rules when others don't.

When I've used the term carebear its been as adjective or an ad-verb rather than a noun and I suppose its a catch all term that could describe a type of play which is linear, unchallenging, or perhaps just safe in a game with adult themes. For example, it might be used to describe someone who didn't like fighting in a game with War in the title.

So now people are voicing up and responding in kind against one pejorative term (griefer) with another (carebear).. now its suddenly not on? This all should have been nipped in the bud LONG ago but it wasn't and whilst I have heaps of respect for the mod team and would never choose undermine them.. this is a case of the chickens coming home to roost.

For what its worth I believe that neither term is positive but when it comes to the flogging to death, erroneous, bitter and twisted use of a word, griefer, is unsurpassed on these forums by a biblical light year.

Its just a shame that wasn't seen as so objectionable when it was griefer this and griefer that. Where were the objections then?

However, I doubt this has really gone away. Not so long ago I saw the forum turn into a witch hunt against one person who simply posted recruiting for other players purely because they didn't agree with a stated way of playing. Is that acceptable..? because its the same crew who were the ones who were so bitterly crying griefer wolf.

You know.. I'm almost afraid to open a post myself looking for other players given the potential hate response. But hugs and kisses, best buddy, isn't this a wonderful world type orgs are fine,.:S I've never been interested in those types of play but what I didn't do was turn up inside the thread and start bitterly tearing apart peoples motives, and ideas I have about what makes them tick. Each to their own right? Be nice if others here paid everyone the same courtesy.

But in closing. If its okay to use griefer in the right context then its my contention that the term carebear should also be fair to use but I'm happy to never use or hear either term again. We can only hope

 

[Seventh Circle]

common rule of life...

 

[Jenner]

In general I'd say it's never ok to use a word... any word... in a way that belittles or generalizes someone or their opinions. Griefer can be just as toxic as carebear in this regard.

People are free to disagree about play styles, but it's not ok to use words that only serve to ratchet up the noise level in the discussion and do nothing to help both sides gain an appreciation for the other's viewpoint.

 

[noodle]

In general I'd say it's never ok to use a word... any word... in a way that belittles or generalizes someone or their opinions. Griefer can be just as toxic as carebear in this regard.

People are free to disagree about play styles, but it's not ok to use words that only serve to ratchet up the noise level in the discussion and do nothing to help both sides gain an appreciation for the other's viewpoint.

I agree in principle, but that does make the whole thing rather subjective. How do you determine if someone's intention is to belittle?

 

[Comrade Napoleon]

Anybody that calls me a Pig will be reported.
Cheers Cmdr's

 

[Jason S]

Forums should come with a free packet of thick skin when registering as you need it when participating in them. Having said that these forums are rather mild in compared to the average.

 

[Perseus]

Anybody that calls me a Pig will be reported.
Cheers Cmdr's

You swine!

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Where was the critical element back with all the griefer labelling and hysteria? It seems to me it was okay then, completely unchallenged officially, I didn't see the mods do anything about that, nor Frontier for that matter.., but now to say the word, 'carebear'.. well we can't have that can we.

I'm afraid it doesn't wash.. So, I'll be happy to never use the word carebear again on the proviso I don't hear anyone say griefer.

If you care to check I personally have objected to carebear pretty much from day 1. I tend to flag posts who use that as a term of attack (so yes that includes yours) - don't stoop to their level is my advice. Someone calls you a griefer flag the post (personal attack)

Most people respect the fact that griefer is used to describe a player whose intent is to ruin another's (and yes can be inappropriately applied) whereas the term carebear describes a players choice / play style.

Completely different ..

 

[DeleteD]

where are you reading? I haven't seen any bashing or name calling. :\

 

[alpharesearch]

I guess the G word to me is a not worthy of respect or approval and extremely unpleasant person in a computer game that tries to exploit and take the fun out of the game. But I'm not a big multiplayer player and the last time I played a lot of multiplayer was CS in 1999. If I remember right at this time everybody hated "campers". I'm probably wrong with my assumption.

I'm not sure what the B word is... but I guess a person that wants to only play it save? or only with friends? or only help others? or not take part of hostile activities? a weak player? whining and complaining type? or all of the above?

I think because Elite is so old we have up to three generations with different views interested in the game:
Baby Boomers 1940s to the early 1960s
Generation X 1960s to the early 1980s
Generation Y (Millennials) 1980s to the early 2000s

I would think here is the biggest disconnect. But labeling someone is not helpful in this forum and that why it would be good to have a better definition and not just a word. I would be much better to define what we want and what we don't want in a paragraph or two.

Anyway I still don't think this is a big issue here because the moderation is good and most of the people are very nice.