Computers don't have common sense.
You need to write a rule for it for the computer to enact it.
Computers are good with rules.
- Status
Computers don't have common sense.
You need to write a rule for it for the computer to enact it.
Computers are good with rules.
Agreed, there're even options in open to avoid being blown up.
I'm sure those who enjoy slaughtering other CMDRs have other income sources, in other words, it's more like a hobby.
Care to explain?
Just thought I'd put it in that in no way am I making judgements on peoples real life behaviour. Just because someone plays as a Dbag in a game doesn't make them a dbag in reality (unless they actually are a dbag in reality of course!). But play like a dbag expect opinions like mine to exist. 
It's really a moot question as the context of the situation is important (as others have mentioned). So almost impossible to define.
Personally I'd have PvP areas/arenas and just have the Pilots federation flat out ban attacks on it's fellow members with SERIOUS repercussions for those repeatedly attacking fellow PF members (look at ANY group/club/organisation in existence and that is what happens (unless it's fight club of course!)). I'd also like to see FD implement the PF kicking players out for certain behaviours and creating proper pirate strongholds/areas for those players to get re-supplied ETC. It would be the "hardcore" mode as there would be no rebuys....pirates being ruthless barstewards and all that. So someone who chooses to be a ne'er do well will eventually have the biggest risks (and excitement?). That's just me of course, I do not think FD have the cahoona's to do that! I'm out of the discussion as it's just circular anyway's as it's largely opinions of varying validity. Next time I post on this subject can a mod just slap me with a haddock.
It's really a moot question as the context of the situation is important (as others have mentioned). So almost impossible to define.
Personally I'd have PvP areas/arenas and just have the Pilots federation flat out ban attacks on it's fellow members with SERIOUS repercussions for those repeatedly attacking fellow PF members (look at ANY group/club/organisation in existence and that is what happens (unless it's fight club of course!)). I'd also like to see FD implement the PF kicking players out for certain behaviours and creating proper pirate strongholds/areas for those players to get re-supplied ETC. It would be the "hardcore" mode as there would be no rebuys....pirates being ruthless barstewards and all that. So someone who chooses to be a ne'er do well will eventually have the biggest risks (and excitement?). That's just me of course, I do not think FD have the cahoona's to do that!
I'm out of the discussion as it's just circular anyway's as it's largely opinions of varying validity. Next time I post on this subject can a mod just slap me with a haddock.Not really, the strenght of an opinion can depend on supporting (though not conclusive) evidence.
Since the OP seems to be in love with the diccionary definition of harrasment (which by itself won't tell you much, it's a linguistic meaning & holds very little information/context) then let's see what Merrian Webster has to say:
1º To annoy persistently.
2º to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harass
Enfasis on persistently.
1º To annoy persistently.
2º to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harass
Enfasis on persistently.
Lets get technical, technical
I wanna get technical
Lets get into technical
Let me see some lawyers talk, lawyers talk
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment
Now the reason to use the legal definition is that words get incorporated in different ways in language, often as a dramatisation or emphasis. Traffic was murder. Work was torture. Using these would mean you could make the case that being stuck in traffic is like murder. Which it isn't of course.
I wanna get technical
Lets get into technical
Let me see some lawyers talk, lawyers talk
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment
Keywords: systematic/continued, unwanted, annoying.
Now the reason to use the legal definition is that words get incorporated in different ways in language, often as a dramatisation or emphasis. Traffic was murder. Work was torture. Using these would mean you could make the case that being stuck in traffic is like murder. Which it isn't of course.
A thing I want to point out when these kinds of accusations begin flying is that 'snowflakes' exist on both sides, and while some say that those complaining about 'bad' things happening to them are 'snowflakes' often turn out to be 'snowflakes' on their own because they are upset they cannot have things their way.
The amount of blame being put at the feet of those simply expecting to play a game, without being at the mercy at some random person, in no way means people are snowflakes, or even that they might not enjoy PvP, and it is something, that many are quick to blame those that speak up those people that attack randomly and without in game reason, are accused of being, regardless of truth or not.
My personal experience tells me with the people that enjoy griefing that they are in fact the Snowflakes, because they cannot handle that some people are enjoying a game, and that they cannot affect them in a way 'they' want to.
And that is the to me biggest distinction in this whole thing, those that vocally support random attackers as 'part of the game', they need other players to get what they want.
People enjoying the game without people or just without being attacked randomly by unknown people for no reason, do not really 'need' other people.
And when you need to play together with other people to have fun, you also need to expect that they are indeed other people, and various social reactions happen when you interact with people.
Wonder if the goalkeeper in Football is suffering "harassment" every time someone tries to score.
What about someone in 1st place in Formula One, with 19 other cars trying to take first place.
Monopoly must cause PTSD for the OP if they land a space with a hotel and someone asks for their rent money.
Wonder if the US will have new rules for their hand egg game to stop people trying to take the egg away from the quarterback, because others shouldn't be allowed to harass them.
Ok. Can we PLEASE stop blaming PLAYERS from harrassing PLAYERS when the game designer makes a room that is really hard to get out of, designs mechanics (engineering mods) that make the room nearly impossible to get out of, then gives players really big bats to beat the crap of starting players with?
You brain pygmies that get your feelings hurt when a player plays the game as designed should be ticked off at the designer, not the players. Argue for PVE Open, argue to lift the caps on PGs, argue to have instancing tools to link with non-hostile pgs, argue for C&P that actually works.
DON'T BLAME PLAYERS FOR PLAYING THE DANG GAME!
You brain pygmies that get your feelings hurt when a player plays the game as designed should be ticked off at the designer, not the players. Argue for PVE Open, argue to lift the caps on PGs, argue to have instancing tools to link with non-hostile pgs, argue for C&P that actually works.
DON'T BLAME PLAYERS FOR PLAYING THE DANG GAME!
There’s a difference between defending a game’s rewarding objective from known enemies and defending yourself (who may not have anything rewarding) from unknowable randoms.
Change yourself to "definitely has nothing rewarding" for noobs in starting system. This hedges pretty close to the definition of spawn camping in FPS games, which is basically universally despised, so I don't know that we can place all the blame on FD, Danicus.
Interesting that your tone turns aggravated and you start throwing out insults when people persistently wont agree with you.
Its almost like you sound harassed.
Hello all.
Linguist here. (not that anyone should indeed believe me or care).
The thing is, using the various dictionary definitions of "harassment" isn't useful. This is because the meaning of each of the definitions of "harassment" differs by degree. From a strict legal sense, to a more general sense.
This results in the good old semantic argument where, depending on the definition of the word to the speaker, the viewpoint of each can be at odds. We have seen this already in the legal interpretation of "harass" to the more general "harass" in the military sense.
As "harass" is by definition ambiguous then we need more information to define the meaning or sense of the word to be able to agree on whether an action is or is not harassment.
To avoid equivocation, it is better to clearly define your argument, making clear your definition of the word in your statement, rather than using all the definitions of the word.
I'm afraid that by not expressing your definition clearly, or using both definitions of the word interchangeably means that your argument is ambiguous and will lead to a circular argument more concerned about definitions of words, rather than examining the actions of the statement. (as evidenced by the 7 pages thus far)
I have my bingo card ready.
Linguist here. (not that anyone should indeed believe me or care).
The thing is, using the various dictionary definitions of "harassment" isn't useful. This is because the meaning of each of the definitions of "harassment" differs by degree. From a strict legal sense, to a more general sense.
This results in the good old semantic argument where, depending on the definition of the word to the speaker, the viewpoint of each can be at odds. We have seen this already in the legal interpretation of "harass" to the more general "harass" in the military sense.
As "harass" is by definition ambiguous then we need more information to define the meaning or sense of the word to be able to agree on whether an action is or is not harassment.
To avoid equivocation, it is better to clearly define your argument, making clear your definition of the word in your statement, rather than using all the definitions of the word.
I'm afraid that by not expressing your definition clearly, or using both definitions of the word interchangeably means that your argument is ambiguous and will lead to a circular argument more concerned about definitions of words, rather than examining the actions of the statement. (as evidenced by the 7 pages thus far)
I have my bingo card ready.
Saves me having to write my opinion. However, doesn't mean I don't think there should be severe consequences for attacking not wanted players.
Last edited:
What I really don't understand is the interest in PvP in this game in the first place.
I mean personally I play and really enjoy PvP based games like pubg, world of tanks,war thunder and battlefield but I can't see elite in the same light.
Actually personally I don't even see this as a PvP game and it is based on the original elite games which were single player games.
I can see where the coop can be interesting but the only remotely interesting PvP part is cqc which no one plays.
To me in elite PvP consists primarily of People in op ships destroying people in base ships it adds nothing.
It has nothing that makes real PvP games interesting.
I play elite in solo or Pg primarily because the PvP aspect adds little to the experience I find it very predictable and bland.
Am I alone in this way of thinking or am I missing something.
I mean personally I play and really enjoy PvP based games like pubg, world of tanks,war thunder and battlefield but I can't see elite in the same light.
Actually personally I don't even see this as a PvP game and it is based on the original elite games which were single player games.
I can see where the coop can be interesting but the only remotely interesting PvP part is cqc which no one plays.
To me in elite PvP consists primarily of People in op ships destroying people in base ships it adds nothing.
It has nothing that makes real PvP games interesting.
I play elite in solo or Pg primarily because the PvP aspect adds little to the experience I find it very predictable and bland.
Am I alone in this way of thinking or am I missing something.
- Status