What I've learned about griefers/gankers across the board.

[Phisto Sobanii]

I don't fear to look into the abyss, or to have it look back at me.

"The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge." - Carl Jung.

And sometimes a gank is just a gank.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

So no I don't think that is funny or acceptable, and I see no evidence that those people are in the same groups.

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." - Martin Rees

And while a classic example of argumentum ad ignorantiam, I will counter-point with saying Simply because you do not see evidence that says these people are the same does not preclude the possibility that they could be the same. And while I certainly do not expect anyone to step up and say "Yes, I push kids down on the playground, then I come here and shoot at anyone who moves.", I will suspect this person does, indeed, exist.

 

[Mohrgan]

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." - Martin Rees

And while a classic example of argumentum ad ignorantiam, I will counter-point with saying Simply because you do not see evidence that says these people are the same does not preclude the possibility that they could be the same. And while I certainly do not expect anyone to step up and say "Yes, I push kids down on the playground, then I come here and shoot at anyone who moves.", I will suspect this person does, indeed, exist.

So, you'd rather assert that no evidence actually means something in the positive, right after you quote Rees. I wonder how he would take your logic on this one?

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." - Martin Rees

And while a classic example of argumentum ad ignorantiam, I will counter-point with saying Simply because you do not see evidence that says these people are the same does not preclude the possibility that they could be the same. And while I certainly do not expect anyone to step up and say "Yes, I push kids down on the playground, then I come here and shoot at anyone who moves.", I will suspect this person does, indeed, exist.

That is irrelevant.
You are making an extraordinary claim.
Burden of proof rests with you.
Absent that evidence, the claim can be dismissed.

See: Russell's teapot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

And no, your little list from earlier is not "proof" of anything.

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." - Martin Rees

And while a classic example of argumentum ad ignorantiam, I will counter-point with saying Simply because you do not see evidence that says these people are the same does not preclude the possibility that they could be the same. And while I certainly do not expect anyone to step up and say "Yes, I push kids down on the playground, then I come here and shoot at anyone who moves.", I will suspect this person does, indeed, exist.

First rule of debate, Indigo: the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim. What you're doing with your oh-so-clever use of quotations is pivoting to "there isn't any proof that some PvPers aren't like that, and so it's eminently reasonable to assume that there are!"

If you want to entertain the OP's notion that certain among the PvP community are inherently bad people based solely on their video game behavior, you're going to have to bring a lot more to the table than dimestore quotations and fair-sounding equivocation.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Also related:

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim, and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

 

[IndigoWyrd]

I see your point on understanding I just don't see how someone plays a video game has any bering on their personality.

Personally I have zero issues attacking other players for no reason and have done so multiple times. Back tracking to the original OP though Im certainly not a child or going to school, just another delightful psychopath in game that may wing up and play together with or send you to the rebuy screen.

I don't see how someone plays a game has any bearing on their personality either. But I do wonder if their personality has any bearing on how they play a game. Cause yields effect, rather than effect yields cause.

And sometimes a gank is just a gank.

But why? That's what I'm trying to understand. "Because I'm bored?" "To impress The Empress?", "Because I can?", "Because Billy took my lunch money?"

There are dozens, if not hundreds of things any of us can choose to do any at time in game. We've all likely done all or most of them at least as many times as we can count. We may choose to spend time gathering materials because our stocks of them are low, or we want to engineer something. We may choose to haul freight, or data or passengers because we feel the need to earn credits, or build reputation. So why make an unprovoked attack on an unsuspecting person?

 

[Freelancer Knux]

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." - Martin Rees

And while a classic example of argumentum ad ignorantiam, I will counter-point with saying Simply because you do not see evidence that says these people are the same does not preclude the possibility that they could be the same. And while I certainly do not expect anyone to step up and say "Yes, I push kids down on the playground, then I come here and shoot at anyone who moves.", I will suspect this person does, indeed, exist.

In the end the probability is higher though that the person in your example shoots players in elite but it has no link to the fact they puch kids down.

Violence and monstrous human beings existed long before all entertainment mediums any link between is a stretch at best, made majority of the time by people with hidden agendas.

 

[Mohrgan]

Also related:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

This could very nearly be considered a 'Hitch-Slap'. I approve.

 

[Chorda]

I don't fear to look into the abyss, or to have it look back at me.

"The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge." - Carl Jung.

More to the point, he also said, "Thank God I am Jung and not a Jungian." After watching the general meeting of the Jung society in DC, I can see exactly what he meant.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

ALSO related:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" was a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan. Its roots are much older, however, with the French mathematician Laplace stating that: "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."[1] Also, David Hume wrote in 1748: "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence", and "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."[2] and Marcello Truzzi says: "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."[3]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence

 

[Mohrgan]

ALSO related:




https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence

Now your just Rep baiting. Bring back the Hitch!

Can I get a "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". - Hitchens ?

 

[Freelancer Knux]

I don't see how someone plays a game has any bearing on their personality either. But I do wonder if their personality has any bearing on how they play a game. Cause yields effect, rather than effect yields cause.



But why? That's what I'm trying to understand. "Because I'm bored?" "To impress The Empress?", "Because I can?", "Because Billy took my lunch money?"

There are dozens, if not hundreds of things any of us can choose to do any at time in game. We've all likely done all or most of them at least as many times as we can count. We may choose to spend time gathering materials because our stocks of them are low, or we want to engineer something. We may choose to haul freight, or data or passengers because we feel the need to earn credits, or build reputation. So why make an unprovoked attack on an unsuspecting person?

See all of this is what I mean your looking for the reason why people play a video game the answer is for entertainment. Why someone enjoys using the weapons in game rather than honking is a question that usually even that person cannot answer properly the most common answers would be "because its fun" or "the other task is boring".

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Now your just Rep baiting. Bring back the Hitch!

Can I get a "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". - Hitchens ?

"whack!"

****Disclaimer:
This poster and any of his relatives, loved ones, pets etc do not mean to incite any IRL violence.
It is a metaphorical slap of a kind and non-violent nature.***

 

[IndigoWyrd]

First rule of debate, Indigo: the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim. What you're doing with your oh-so-clever use of quotations is pivoting to "there isn't any proof that some PvPers aren't like that, and so it's eminently reasonable to assume that there are!"

If you want to entertain the OP's notion that certain among the PvP community are inherently bad people based solely on their video game behavior, you're going to have to bring a lot more to the table than dimestore quotations and fair-sounding equivocation.

I suspect the proof will present itself, if it hasn't already.

But let's throw another term out here: Hypothesis

Acting out our dark impulses, our Jungian shadows, in a "safe" environment, does not necessitate a person be a "bad person". In fact, it can be quite a healthy activity, as no one is actually being physically harmed. Of course, this does not preclude inflicting psychological harm, and this has been a well documented phenomenon of the internet, to the point of earning its own special terms Cyberbullying and Trolling. Does it happen here? There are more than a few threads that suggest it does. The "Hotel California" thread, countless Combat-Logging threads, equally countless "named and shamed" threads that have since been moderated into oblivion certainly support the position that this has and does happen here. I'd hasten to include a recent thread where the Original Post was praising their ability to menu-log out of combat situations as a reverse form of this.

So yes, there is evidence to support a position that there are people with inherent issues among us.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." - Martin Rees

And while a classic example of argumentum ad ignorantiam, I will counter-point with saying Simply because you do not see evidence that says these people are the same does not preclude the possibility that they could be the same. And while I certainly do not expect anyone to step up and say "Yes, I push kids down on the playground, then I come here and shoot at anyone who moves.", I will suspect this person does, indeed, exist.

The funniest part is you have the concept backwards!
You are making an appeal to ignorance.

"People" is plural, btw!

You get an F!

 

[Mohrgan]

I suspect the proof will present itself, if it hasn't already.

But let's throw another term out here: Hypothesis

Acting out our dark impulses, our Jungian shadows, in a "safe" environment, does not necessitate a person be a "bad person". In fact, it can be quite a healthy activity, as no one is actually being physically harmed. Of course, this does not preclude inflicting psychological harm, and this has been a well documented phenomenon of the internet, to the point of earning its own special terms Cyberbullying and Trolling. Does it happen here? There are more than a few threads that suggest it does. The "Hotel California" thread, countless Combat-Logging threads, equally countless "named and shamed" threads that have since been moderated into oblivion certainly support the position that this has and does happen here. I'd hasten to include a recent thread where the Original Post was praising their ability to menu-log out of combat situations as a reverse form of this.

So yes, there is evidence to support a position that there are people with inherent issues among us.

A Hypothesis is a theory based on untested data. You have zero data. None. When that is the case we can politely call it an assertion, but mostly it's just claptrap. None of that above can imply a gamer's intent, or gain us insight on a person's RL personality.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

See all of this is what I mean your looking for the reason why people play a video game the answer is for entertainment. Why someone enjoys using the weapons in game rather than honking is a question that usually even that person cannot answer properly the most common answers would be "because its fun" or "the other task is boring".

Just because a person doesn't understand their own reasons does not mean there are no reasons... why does this sound so familiar? I happen to enjoy trying to understand those reasons. Why? Because the human psyche is interesting to me. Why? Because we're surrounded by people, and understanding them is a means of relating to them, knowing how best to interact with them, and generally fosters good will between them.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

A Hypothesis is a theory based on untested data. You have zero data. None. When that is the case we can politely call it an assertion, but mostly it's just claptrap. None of that above can imply a gamer's intent, or gain us insight on a person's RL personality.

I say Indigo has an army of pleasure gerbils.

The evidence will accumulate, you'll see!

 

[Mohrgan]

Just because a person doesn't understand their own reasons does not mean there are no reasons... why does this sound so familiar? I happen to enjoy trying to understand those reasons. Why? Because the human psyche is interesting to me. Why? Because we're surrounded by people, and understanding them is a means of relating to them, knowing how best to interact with them, and generally fosters good will between them.

Yet. you can divine their intentions and status without knowing them. Astounding. You should do this for a living...