Modes Is attacking clean players (not npcs) in Open harassment?

[Bob Lighthouse]

Most people who are avid hobbyists, sportsmen, and the like can spot a newbie in a heartbeat and at least warn them. That the people in your supposed "capital of surfing", there are quite a few places claiming that title by the way, could care less and would just watch a newbie go out like that... Actually that says LOADS about the people there actually.

Why are you making up stuff?
People will help out of their own goodness all the time, not that people are smart enough to even read:

https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2002-21.html

This is just you wanting to attack people, again.
Lots of places claim that, so what?
We're actually the "birthplace of modern surfing" and widely considered the "Mecca" by those who actually surf.
That supports my point actually.
Lots of people claim nonsense, but we have the providence.
Not all words and opinions are to be considered equal.
Some people are full of baloney.

Actually... they didn't. You must have missed my reply to you, or blatantly ignored it. Their whole stance is ambiguous as they won't give cut and dry.

Seems you are just being dishonest and lashing out.
Most people who read it come to similar conclusions.
Ymmv.

 

[Mouse]

Why are you making up stuff?
People will help out of their own goodness all the time, not that people are smart enough to even read:

https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2002-21.html

This is just you wanting to attack people, again.
Lots of places claim that, so what?
We're actually the "birthplace of modern surfing" and widely considered the "Mecca" by those who actually surf.
That supports my point actually.
Lots of people claim nonsense, but we have the providence.
Not all words and opinions are to be considered equal.
Some people are full of baloney.

Funny.... I never said that no one has ever died from doing stupid, I said most people who are skilled in doing things, when seeing someone who clearly is not skilled, will step in and stop them. Or at least they will try. So again, how am I "attacking you" or making things up? You are the one who claimed that people, where you live, will just watch someone go out and kill themselves...which even by the article you linked is wrong. "Witnesses said that Daniel walked right by them on his way to the blowhole, and they warned him to stay away. He kept going." And if you want Hawaii to be the Capital or Mecca of surfing keep believing that. Yet other places, as I said, claim the title as well... wasn't a falsehood just a statement, because they do claim it... I let travel journals, and such make that distinction on who is right.

Seems you are just being dishonest and lashing out.
Most people who read it come to similar conclusions.
Ymmv.

Then it is absolutely clear that you did not read what I posted, so I will again. You want to claim I am being dishonest and "lashing out".... which I find odd... because you keep using the terms like "attacking" and "Lashing out". Terms that are used to try and make your own points appear more valid by falsely claiming I am doing such things instead of just pointing things out.

Oh and since you didn't seem to read it and want to make claims... I will post it again.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...n-harassment?p=7104763&viewfull=1#post7104763

 

[00nutzy]

No you have it backwards.
Crocker's rules only applies to yourself.
It's about accepting personal responsibility.
It doesn't license you to insult someone else.




No, tone /= behavior.
Also, your assumption of my tone is irrelevant to objective facts, and may be way off base to begin with.




Maybe it was an ad hominem filter.






No, the devs get to decide what is right and wrong.
Don't make up stuff.
That is the vanity, acting like all positions are equal.
The article I just posted is about exactly that.

I think you are misinterpreting my words or missrepresenting them .Not sure why you would want to do the latter
Ai stated Crocker's rules only applies to those that accept them. And some people (according even to Crocker's) abuse that and use it to be insulting. There is no doubt that discourse can be unpleasant and adopting Crocker's rules goes a ways in removing emotions from the discussion but seriously you can't observe these forums and not see the insults that flow like tap water around here. And just because you (the global not personal) ascribe to Crocker's rules doesn't give you the right to be an Adam Henry.

None of this is personally directed at you so no I am not making any assumptions of your tone here.

Athe purpose of Crocker's rules is to further discussion not assume a moral high ground over emotional people. In fact it should curb your (again not personal here) tendencies to demean others by your words.

Taking resposresponsi also extends to what you yourself project.

I am not sure what is lost in translation here. In this game with the lack of decent communication tools your actions are all anyone has to go on people will judge you for your actions without further information on who you are etc.

Unfortunately or fortunately everyone is different and everyone has bad days.
People will judge you on your actions it happens every day in video games in chatrooms at school or the office it's going to happen.

It's the reality of the human condition. It you want to be upset at that it's your choice.

The game has three modes that let you decide how you want to play anyone who tries to tell you you are wrong or cheeting by using a different mode is lying to you.

 

[00nutzy]

Maybe it was an ad hominem filter.


No, the devs get to decide what is right and wrong.
Don't make up stuff.
That is the vanity, acting like all positions are equal.
The article I just posted is about exactly that.

Not sure what ad hominym you are referring to??? It's one of the Bruce's songs anyway that's not important. It certantly was not an attack of any form

I am not making stuff up . People will judge you by your actions. While FDev can say the rules allow certain behavior they can't make a rule stating how people should view actions they are not Miniluv nor the thought police nor do they try to be.

Some people (often the ones who demand you enjoy being their content) want to force or coerce others to play the game their way and go around calling them exploiters or cheeters if they don't play in open. Actions and behavior like thar have a tendency to get them labeled as bullies or worse.

They may be the nicest people but their actions are all we have to go by in the game

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

I think you are misinterpreting my words or missrepresenting them .Not sure why you would want to do the latter
Ai stated Crocker's rules only applies to those that accept them. And some people (according even to Crocker's) abuse that and use it to be insulting. There is no doubt that discourse can be unpleasant and adopting Crocker's rules goes a ways in removing emotions from the discussion but seriously you can't observe these forums and not see the insults that flow like tap water around here. And just because you (the global not personal) ascribe to Crocker's rules doesn't give you the right to be an Adam Henry.

Yes, what you call an "issue" I call a strength and exactly what is great about it.
It is ONLY about personal responsibility.
You are building a strawman.

It's only unpleasant if you don't apply it to yourself, or try to make other people adhere to it!
LOL!!!

None of this is personally directed at you so no I am not making any assumptions of your tone here.

Athe purpose of Crocker's rules is to further discussion not assume a moral high ground over emotional people. In fact it should curb your (again not personal here) tendencies to demean others by your words.

Taking resposresponsi also extends to what you yourself project.

I am not sure what is lost in translation here. In this game with the lack of decent communication tools your actions are all anyone has to go on people will judge you for your actions without further information on who you are etc.

Unfortunately or fortunately everyone is different and everyone has bad days.
People will judge you on your actions it happens every day in video games in chatrooms at school or the office it's going to happen.

It's the reality of the human condition. It you want to be upset at that it's your choice.

The game has three modes that let you decide how you want to play anyone who tries to tell you you are wrong or cheeting by using a different mode is lying to you.

This is all a silly, fallacious derail on your part, but you keep addressing me...

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Funny.... I never said that no one has ever died from doing stupid, I said most people who are skilled in doing things, when seeing someone who clearly is not skilled, will step in and stop them. Or at least they will try. So again, how am I "attacking you" or making things up? You are the one who claimed that people, where you live, will just watch someone go out and kill themselves...which even by the article you linked is wrong. "Witnesses said that Daniel walked right by them on his way to the blowhole, and they warned him to stay away. He kept going." And if you want Hawaii to be the Capital or Mecca of surfing keep believing that. Yet other places, as I said, claim the title as well... wasn't a falsehood just a statement, because they do claim it... I let travel journals, and such make that distinction on who is right.

LOL, what do you want?
My points are clear.
Your "soft bigotry of low expectations" is the biggest problem here.

Then it is absolutely clear that you did not read what I posted, so I will again. You want to claim I am being dishonest and "lashing out".... which I find odd... because you keep using the terms like "attacking" and "Lashing out". Terms that are used to try and make your own points appear more valid by falsely claiming I am doing such things instead of just pointing things out.

Oh and since you didn't seem to read it and want to make claims... I will post it again.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...n-harassment?p=7104763&viewfull=1#post7104763

Repeating nonsense doesn't make it true.

Not sure what ad hominym you are referring to??? It's one of the Bruce's songs anyway that's not important. It certantly was not an attack of any form

I am not making stuff up . People will judge you by your actions. While FDev can say the rules allow certain behavior they can't make a rule stating how people should view actions they are not Miniluv nor the thought police nor do they try to be.

Some people (often the ones who demand you enjoy being their content) want to force or coerce others to play the game their way and go around calling them exploiters or cheeters if they don't play in open. Actions and behavior like thar have a tendency to get them labeled as bullies or worse.

They may be the nicest people but their actions are all we have to go by in the game

Maybe you don't know what an ad hominem is?

All of your silly tangents have nothing to do with my points.
I have no idea why you keep posting to me.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

What we believe has little bearing.
People often believe things that are silly and wrong, even when presented with evidence.

The answer is no.
Please read #s 2 and 5.

Oh yes.

 

[Mouse]

LOL, what do you want?
My points are clear.
Your "soft bigotry of low expectations" is the biggest problem here.






Repeating nonsense doesn't make it true.





Maybe you don't know what an ad hominem is?

All of your silly tangents have nothing to do with my points.
I have no idea why you keep posting to me.

You are right, repeating nonsense doesn't make it true... you should heed your own advice since I quote DIRECTLY from the E-mail YOU yourself posted, FDev's TOS for Elite Dangerous (with link) and their Code of Conduct (with link). But hey... you don't like it when people do actual research and notice how things are said so you spout off... again to try to deflect.

As for "soft bigotry of low expectations"... I see you like GWB... and it is interesting for you to use that phrase when there has been none in this conversation. Oh.. was it because YOU made a comment that people in Hawaii just callously watch people do stupid and die? And I disproved that comment with your own article where people actually warned the idiot? Or that I stated that Most hobbyists, Sportsmen, professionals, etc when watching others can usually tell when someone is new and will many times actively intervene to stop them from doing something that could be fatal?

If that is your definition of "soft bigotry of low expectations" than that speaks even MORE volumes about you...

 

[00nutzy]

LOL, what do you want?
My points are clear.
Your "soft bigotry of low expectations" is the biggest problem here.






Repeating nonsense doesn't make it true.





Maybe you don't know what an ad hominem is?

All of your silly tangents have nothing to do with my points.
I have no idea why you keep posting to me.

I keep replying to you because you are replying to me.

I have stated this is not personally about you, perhaps you should apply those rules you are so fond of to this conversation??

I certainly have been, unless you wish to tell me you are actually trying to demean/insult me.

Those rules are created specifically for the purpose of removing the unpleasantness of discourse (especially in relation to emotions) in an effort to eliminate the sounding room type of discussions where people refrain from commenting because its unpleasant and create an undemocratic (not in the political party sense) unanimous vote.

I am not sure what your points are about. You brought the rules into the conversation, I simply tried to show you (as does the author of those rules if you read his discourses) that they are no excuse for being an AH.
Your statements that its all about personal responsibility aside you seem to feel the rules give you the right to speak however you wish with no regards to anybody else (which again if you read his works he does not agree with). Since they are only an internal set of rules/guides to apply to controlling your own feelings (more personal choice rather than responsibility) to allow you to continue the discourse.

My whole point which you refuse to address is that in a social environment people will judge others on their actions (regardless of the legality of those actions), and if they do not know the other person they have nothing else to soften the edges of their opinions about the other people.

Do I need to remind you that you are the one who brought this tangent (the rules) into this conversation??

The reality is that people (each one being different) will judge each other by their interactions. If they view the interaction as something a jerk/bully would do thats how they will view the other person.

Blowing an unarmed trader up is not in and of itself a jerk thing to do, however going on the forums/redit/youtube and making demeaning statements about them is. If you do that thats ok but do not be upset when people label you***.

*** You is being used as the general you not a specific or personal You

 

[00nutzy]

Oh yes.

And this is true. Some people will view it as being a jerk others will not.

However going on to twitch/youtube/redit or these forums and demeaning others will get you*** labeled by some. Dont let it bother you*** if you enjoy that type of interaction. Just dont get your*** knickers in a twist if people tell you*** how they feel.

*** You is being used in the general sense not in a direct personal manner

 

[Dietger]

Finally we all play a game.
We don't need to accuse nore reason to "attack" other players. While we are all in the same boat in Open, one can easily change perspective and play ground in Elite. Modes.
Four years of endless discussions about an insult that never happened.
Technically there can't be any insult by "dying" off the hand of a fellow player, in Open.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

I keep replying to you because you are replying to me.

I have stated this is not personally about you, perhaps you should apply those rules you are so fond of to this conversation??

I certainly have been, unless you wish to tell me you are actually trying to demean/insult me.

Those rules are created specifically for the purpose of removing the unpleasantness of discourse (especially in relation to emotions) in an effort to eliminate the sounding room type of discussions where people refrain from commenting because its unpleasant and create an undemocratic (not in the political party sense) unanimous vote.

You keep asking me questions, should I ignore you?

Really, it is to expedite.
Emotional impact is secondary.
Tone policing is an anti debate technique.
It becomes a catch all for the "evasion of dispute".

Crocker's Rules are something you do for yourself, to maximize information received - not something you grit your teeth over and do as a favor.

That is exactly what I suggest we should be striving for.
Instead, we, as a society are moving towards personal "perceived insult" to reign supreme.
It's pathetic, illogical, those are the real AHs.

I am not sure what your points are about. You brought the rules into the conversation, I simply tried to show you (as does the author of those rules if you read his discourses) that they are no excuse for being an AH.

I am saying the AHs are the ones focusing on tone, instead of the substance.

Your statements that its all about personal responsibility aside you seem to feel the rules give you the right to speak however you wish with no regards to anybody else (which again if you read his works he does not agree with). Since they are only an internal set of rules/guides to apply to controlling your own feelings (more personal choice rather than responsibility) to allow you to continue the discourse.

No, it's impossible to acccount for eveyone.
I hate having to scroll trough all the social formatting myself.
I don't get all up in arms about it.

"OMG! It's so RUDE, all those extra words!!11!!"

Just because I leave it out, doesn't mean I've adopted a negative "tone" either.
That is just silliness.
You are building a strawman.

My whole point which you refuse to address is that in a social environment people will judge others on their actions (regardless of the legality of those actions), and if they do not know the other person they have nothing else to soften the edges of their opinions about the other people.

And attacking people personally online is worse than playing a video game as it was designed and expl;icitly explained.
Those people deserve no such consideration in the first place, they are the AHs here.

Do I need to remind you that you are the one who brought this tangent (the rules) into this conversation??

You seem to be confused about them.

The reality is that people (each one being different) will judge each other by their interactions. If they view the interaction as something a jerk/bully would do thats how they will view the other person.

Yes, and like I said already, that cuts both ways.
The perception is in our control too.
I don't support your low expectations, that is all.

Blowing an unarmed trader up is not in and of itself a jerk thing to do, however going on the forums/redit/youtube and making demeaning statements about the attacker is. If you do that thats ok but do not be upset when people label you***.

*** You is being used as the general you not a specific or personal You

FTFY
You're almost there!

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

I reject the smarm.

Over time, it has become clear that anti-negativity is a worldview of its own, a particular mode of thinking and argument, no matter how evasively or vapidly it chooses to express itself. For a guiding principle of 21st century literary criticism, BuzzFeed's Fitzgerald turned to the moral and intellectual teachings of Walt Disney, in the movie Bambi: "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all."

What is smarm, exactly? Smarm is a kind of performance—an assumption of the forms of seriousness, of virtue, of constructiveness, without the substance. Smarm is concerned with appropriateness and with tone. Smarm disapproves.

Smarm would rather talk about anything other than smarm. Why, smarm asks, can't everyone just be nicer?

The evasion of disputes is a defining tactic of smarm. Smarm, whether political or literary, insists that the audience accept the priors it has been given. Debate begins where the important parts of the debate have ended.

At some point, in a piece like this, convention calls for the admission that the complaints against snark are not entirely without merit. Fine. Some snark is harmful and rotten and stupid. Just as, to various degrees, some poems and Page-One newspaper stories and sermons and football gambling advice columns are harmful and rotten and stupid. Like every other mode, snark can sometimes be done badly or to bad purposes.


A civilization that speaks in smarm is a civilization that has lost its ability to talk about purposes at all.

Smarm, on the other hand, is never a force for good. A civilization that speaks in smarm is a civilization that has lost its ability to talk about purposes at all. It is a civilization that says "Don't Be Evil," rather than making sure it does not do evil.

http://gawker.com/on-smarm-1476594977

 

[00nutzy]

I reject the smarm.












http://gawker.com/on-smarm-1476594977

Interesting, negativity in and of itself is a reasonable take on any event, if that is how it is viewed.
My position on the whole thing (I am aware you() do not agree) is that it is possible to call a spade a spade but do it in a manner that does not lower oneself to personal attacks or insults or slights. Those things will almost always shut down any discourse because the person insulted will most likely stop listening to anything, which in and of itself defeats the purpose of said discourse.

That in no way means you*** must speak in a way to sugar coat everything or walk on eggshells so to speak. Every rule has its exception (probably even this one) we live in a world that is multi spectrum not just monochromatic black and white.

I certainly do not want you to stop talking with me. I think we are a whole lot more alike than you () are willing to admit.

The art of discourse is lost in the world of TLR and twitter. Debate is one of (imo) one of greatest compliments and art forms, and the only loosers are the ones who stop listening. YMMV of course.

It is one great thing about freedom its the diverse views that allow society as a whole to evolve and grow. Of course there are those that feel society is just a form of Devolution and homogenization.

I am a bit confused, I am not trying to build anything, I am certainly not expecting to change your views, but like you() I do like to discuss things, seriously no strawman intended, and

Were you disagreeing with my statement that blowing up an unarmed trader was not nessisarily an AH move or disagreeing that going on youtube/twitter/twitch and demeaning and insulting players is an AH to do?

*** You is used in the general term () you being used directly

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Interesting, negativity in and of itself is a reasonable take on any event, if that is how it is viewed.
My position on the whole thing (I am aware you() do not agree) is that it is possible to call a spade a spade but do it in a manner that does not lower oneself to personal attacks or insults or slights. Those things will almost always shut down any discourse because the person insulted will most likely stop listening to anything, which in and of itself defeats the purpose of said discourse.

That in no way means you*** must speak in a way to sugar coat everything or walk on eggshells so to speak. Every rule has its exception (probably even this one) we live in a world that is multi spectrum not just monochromatic black and white.

I certainly do not want you to stop talking with me. I think we are a whole lot more alike than you () are willing to admit.

The art of discourse is lost in the world of TLR and twitter. Debate is one of (imo) one of greatest compliments and art forms, and the only loosers are the ones who stop listening. YMMV of course.

It is one great thing about freedom its the diverse views that allow society as a whole to evolve and grow. Of course there are those that feel society is just a form of Devolution and homogenization.

I am a bit confused, I am not trying to build anything, I am certainly not expecting to change your views, but like you() I do like to discuss things, seriously no strawman intended, and

Were you disagreeing with my statement that blowing up an unarmed trader was not nessisarily an AH move or disagreeing that going on youtube/twitter/twitch and demeaning and insulting players is an AH to do?

*** You is used in the general term () you being used directly

I'll make note that despite me stating unequivocally that I find all the social formatting rude/tedious, you immediately did just that.

Did you miss the change I made?

 

[00nutzy]

I'll make note that despite me stating unequivocally that I find all the social formatting rude/tedious, you immediately did just that.

Did you miss the change I made?

Yes I did I see no difference in the quote so please reply to my question or do not its up to you.

Your personal likes and dislikes dont mean I have to change just as I do not expect you to change.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Yes I did I see no difference in the quote so please reply to my question or do not its up to you.

It's right there still:

Blowing an unarmed trader up is not in and of itself a jerk thing to do, however going on the forums/redit/youtube and making demeaning statements about the attacker is.

Your personal likes and dislikes dont mean I have to change just as I do not expect you to change.

No of course not, but if you want to object about perceived rudeness, it makes you a hypocrite.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”

― Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

[Mouse]

“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”

― Ralph Waldo Emerson

*Looks at quote, looks at your claims that people were attacking you above, laughs at the irony*

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

*Looks at quote, looks at your claims that people were attacking you above, laughs at the irony*

You really should use fresh basil in lasagna.


People are calling me names and making veiled insults.
If they kept focus on my points instead, then it would be hypocritical.
But as it stands, I am doing something entirely different and am being subjected to bizarre, off base accusations/insults.

(eg "Own being a bully" )

But you don't care about facts!

So about that lasagna...