Going against your own word - "infiltrators" please note

[Ian Skippy]

Out of curiosity, does this mean you actually read those 100 page EULAs before clicking "I have read and agree to" button?

Of course not, it is only sacrosanct when playing this very specific computer game. And if there is anything people do when they are very not passionate and non-emotional about something, it is starting multiple topics and posting dozens upon dozens of times about this highly specific and very rare behavior in one computer game that they are not passionate or emotional about at all. For many years. That is all very normal.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

It is a categorical truth that if a person lies to you, then they are a liar. There is no black and white here. A lie is a lie. Simple.

What about this context?

I’m hiding in the attic of a friend. The ruling government wants to kill me based on my religion, sex, or national identity. They come to the house and ask if I’m there. My friend says no, I am not there.

Is my friend trustworthy?

Anyway, point is, this conversation is silly. Elite is a game. I hope people see that.

 

[biot]

What about this context?

I’m hiding in the attic of a friend. The ruling government wants to kill me based on my religion, sex, or national identity. They come to the house and ask if I’m there. My friend says no, I am not there.

Is my friend trustworthy?

Anyway, point is, this conversation is silly. Elite is a game. I hope people see that.

Your example misses the salient points that the OP is making. Applying to join the group is a voluntary act. It is not statutory. Signing up with the intent of breaking the rules of membership is a choice, not a compulsion or a necessity. So your example is not equivalent.

 

[Moriarte]

I'm not asking for opinion in this. I'm writing down fact and therefore it is not open to interpretation or subjective opinion.

Yours Aye

Mark H

It’s the other way around, genius. We begin interpretation only after writing down fact.

Truly Yours,

Voice of Reason

 

[Ian Skippy]

Your example misses the salient points that the OP is making. Applying to join the group is a voluntary act. It is not statutory. Signing up with the intent of breaking the rules of membership is a choice, not a compulsion or a necessity. So your example is not equivalent.

He didnt say it was equivalent, he just demonstrated that "you lie, so you are untrustworthy" is grade-school level logic/morality. OP should just say "in my opinion, in this context lying makes you a poopypants!". He would have a point.

 

[Ian Skippy]

It’s the other way around, genius. We begin interpretation only after writing down fact.

Truly Yours,

Voice of Reason

Even better:

"Its not up for discussion!", yelled the man on the discussion forum.

Seriously though, if he doesnt want to hear opinions about it and it isnt up for discussion, maybe OP should write it in his diary instead.

 

[mossfoot]

What about this context?

I’m hiding in the attic of a friend. The ruling government wants to kill me based on my religion, sex, or national identity. They come to the house and ask if I’m there. My friend says no, I am not there.

Is my friend trustworthy?

Anyway, point is, this conversation is silly. Elite is a game. I hope people see that.

Then use a game metaphor.

We're bowling. One of those alleys where the score is tracked by computer. We're in two separate lanes.

You're good. You're getting strikes. You've got a bowling team shirt on with a championship badge on.

I'm okay, I'm just playing for the fun of it. I bowl granny-style, but I'm also trying my best. But granny style bugs the hell out of you, because you're a pro.

I'm enjoying my game but on my next turn you come over and roll a gutterball in my lane, then go back to your lane and keep getting strikes. Computer registers it as my turn. A couple of turns later you come over and do it again. I ask you to stop. You say if I was any good a few gutterballs wouldn't matter and to suck it up. I ask the manager to reset the game and you call me a wuss.

Then you say say you're just joking. You're a pro after all, maybe you can help with my game. If I let you come to my lane and watch you can give me some pointers. I say sure. Then my turn comes again, you brush me aside, roll another gutterball, say "git gud" and go back to your lane.

If it's just a game, what do I have to get upset about?

 

[Ian Skippy]

Then use a game metaphor.

We're bowling. One of those alleys where the score is tracked by computer. We're in two separate lanes.

You're good. You're getting strikes. You've got a bowling team shirt on with a championship badge on.

I'm okay, I'm just playing for the fun of it, but I'm also trying my best.

I'm enjoying my game but on my next turn you come over and roll a gutterball in my lane, then go back to your lane and keep getting strikes. Computer registers it as my turn. A couple of turns later you come over and do it again. I ask you to stop. You say if I was any good a few gutterballs wouldn't matter and to suck it up. I ask the manager to reset the game and you call me a wuss.

Then you say say you're just joking. You're a pro after all, maybe you can help with my game. If I let you come to my lane and watch you can give me some pointers. I say sure. Then my turn comes again, you brush me aside, roll another gutterball, say "git gud" and go back to your lane.

If it's just a game, what do I have to get upset about?

Yes, that would be annoying. But he isnt arguing it isn't annoying, he is arguing that OP's 'there is no context, if you ever lie you are untrustworthy' is ridiculous. Which is indeed true.

 

[biot]

He didnt say it was equivalent, he just demonstrated that "you lie, so you are untrustworthy" is grade-school level logic/morality. OP should just say "in my opinion, in this context lying makes you a poopypants!". He would have a point.

It might just be more on point to come up with a statement that starts: "I believe it is not dishonest to join a non-PVP Private Group with the express intent to engage in PVP within that group because ..." rather than come up with analogies. This would then give a concrete counter point to the OP that could be discussed on its own merits.

Edit: I changed the word "valid" to "not dishonest" because it was not "on point" enough [big grin]

 

[Ian Skippy]

It might just be more on point to come up with a statement that starts: "I believe it is valid to join a non-PVP Private Group with the express intent to engage in PVP within that group because ..." rather than come up with analogies. This would then give a concrete counter point to the OP that could be discussed on its own merits.

Again: I am not saying that. I dont think it is okay to do that. I think it is kinda jerkish behavior. What I and others disagree with is the absurd grade-school level morality of 'if you ever lie, even in a computer game, you are never to be trusted.'. And I am especially disagreeing with OPs simplistic and binary opinion being a 'fact'.

If OP said:" joining a non-PVP Private Group with the express intent to engage in PVP within that group is an unpleasant thing to do." I would be 100% in agreement. Plenty of people who disagree with OP already said that. That isnt the issue. The armchair psychology build upon that basic idea however annoys me. Maybe because psychology is my background, and it always irritates me when this kind of nonsense pops up.

 

[Rampant]

Of course not, it is only sacrosanct when playing this very specific computer game. And if there is anything people do when they are very not passionate and non-emotional about something, it is starting multiple topics and posting dozens upon dozens of times about this highly specific and very rare behavior in one computer game that they are not passionate or emotional about at all. For many years. That is all very normal.

So funny.

That is one of the worst as hominem posts I've ever witnessed.

No matter how hard you try, you can't "discredit" the facts that I keep reiterating not because I'm upset, or emotional in any way, it is simply because people like yourself are trying to be deliberately obtuse. Transparently so.

It is beginning to appear that you are the one becoming emotional along with some other posters that don't want to recognise the truthful fact about what I'm describing. Just to keep clarifying that no interpretation is possible in the circumstances I describe because what I'm posting about happens to be an absolute truth.

It appears that some just don't want to recognise the truth about this, and keep trying to "explain" or "interpret". Sorry, but not possible. Absolute truths aren't negotiable.

Cheerz

Mark H

 

[mossfoot]

Yes, that would be annoying. But he isnt arguing it isn't annoying, he is arguing that OP's 'there is no context, if you ever lie you are untrustworthy' is ridiculous. Which is indeed true.

Its not just annoying. People have an expectation and a right to play their game in their lane the way they want.

Just like someone in a PG has a right not to have a griefer find a way in and disrupt the game.

Just like if they allow someone to come to their lane that they play the game right while there.

And these people can't just dismiss their crappy behaviour with "it's just a game" as a defence. They are going in with the intention of misdirection to upset someone else and breaking the rules to do so.

Ultimately the message being sent, intentional or otherwise, is "You don't play the way I do. You don't belong here."

 

[Ian Skippy]

So funny.

That is one of the worst as hominem posts I've ever witnessed.

I am glad to see you remain as hyperbole-free and dispassionate as always. [haha]

Its not just annoying.

Yes, yes it is. You lose a few minutes of your time in a computer game. If that is more than 'just annoying' your life must be awesome.

And you can't just dismiss your crappy behaviour with "it's just a game" as a defence.

My behavior? What are you even talking about? I wasnt there, I'll join DWE at a later stage as fleet security. And I am not even defending that behavior. Its weird to see people so invested in this that they automatically attack without reading what people actually say. Weird stuff.

Oh, to remain on the same level as the OP: everything I say is the truth. Nothing I say is an opinion. Everyone who disagrees is very emotional and doesnt know the truth. Because what I say is the truth, and nothing else. Truth.

Truth is what I say. The truth. Truth!

 

[Jukelo]

Secondly we can trash that made up concept of destroying ships in a PG being "within the rules of the game". They're not. "By clicking on PG", they agreed to be bound by the rules of the PG.

Nobody breaks the game's rules when they kill someone in a PG. What rule is that? Can you prove any agreement existed between the player and the other players in that PG, that no PVP would happen there?

I am part of Mobius, but no agreement exists between myself and the other players in that group that would prevent me from blowing up their ship. At no point was I asked to agree to anything, so how are you going to argue to Frontier that I should be punished by them for breaking a rule that doesn't exist and was never part of the contract I have with Frontier as one of their customer?

The people running Mobius are of course 100% free to deny me access to the group, or kick me out at any point and for any or no reason at all however... and THAT is the only rule and the only punishment that matters.

As for all this nonsense about honour I don't think it deserves more than a sneer in passing.

 

[mossfoot]

Yes, yes it is. You lose a few minutes of your time in a computer game. If that is more than 'just annoying' your life must be awesome.

And is that the only thing someone feels when Bowling Champ marches over and rolls a gutter ball in their lane? When he makes fun of them for bowling granny-style? (I'll have to add that to the original example)

My behavior? What are you even talking about? I wasnt there, I'll join DWE at a later stage as fleet security...

I'm not speaking to you specifically that was a general "you" following in style and tone with the originally stated scenario. If you like (specific you) I'll change it to "they" or "someone."

 

[Ian Skippy]

And is that the only thing someone feels when Bowling Champ marches over and rolls a gutter ball in their lane? When he makes fun of them for bowling granny-style? (I'll have to add that too the original example)

Yes, if someone would come over and insult my poor bowling technique or roll a gutter ball in my lane that would be just annoying. Or even mildly annoying. And that would be a confrontation with someone physically standing next to you, and mocking you in a public space where people can recognize you. People shooting my space ship when I dont want that, or saying "lol u so noob"? That is mildly annoying at worst.

I'm not speaking to you specifically that was a general "you." If you like (specific you) I'll change it to "they" or "someone."

Ah, ok. Language can be weird.

 

[VR StarLightPL]

This thread still going???

Obligatory XKCD

 

[Bigmaec]

Nobody breaks the game's rules when they kill someone in a PG. What rule is that? Can you prove any agreement existed between the player and the other players in that PG, that no PVP would happen there?

I am part of Mobius, but no agreement exists between myself and the other players in that group that would prevent me from blowing up their ship. At no point was I asked to agree to anything, so how are you going to argue to Frontier that I should be punished by them for breaking a rule that doesn't exist and was never part of the contract I have with Frontier as one of their customer?

The people running Mobius are of course 100% free to deny me access to the group, or kick me out at any point and for any or no reason at all however... and THAT is the only rule and the only punishment that matters.

As for all this nonsense about honour I don't think it deserves more than a sneer in passing.

https://elitepve.com/page/policy

 

[Jukelo]

https://elitepve.com/page/policy

Access to the private group is not conditioned by your acceptance of the rules laid out on this third party webpage. All you have to do to join the group is search for it in-game, and for the group owner to accept your request. At no point are you, as far as Frontier is concerned, asked to formally agree to any rules as established by the group owner. The flipside is of course, that Frontier gives the group owner full control over who can access it.

 

[mossfoot]

Yes, if someone would come over and insult my poor bowling technique or roll a gutter ball in my lane that would be just annoying. Or even mildly annoying. And that would be a confrontation with someone physically standing next to you, and mocking you in a public space where people can recognize you. People shooting my space ship when I dont want that, or saying "lol u so noob"? That is mildly annoying at worst.

In Open, I would agree. You rolls the dice and takes your chances. FD has said this behavior is allowed, and until they say otherwise I'm fine with that. I normally play only in Open (the main reason I'm in Fleetcomm for DW2 is to increase the chances of interacting with fellow explorers)

But this thread started with a simple scenario: The difference between playing in Open, and infiltrating a private group with clearly stated rules with the intention of subverting them. You can do whatever you want in Open and excuse it by saying it's a game. Just like Bowling Champ can set up whatever jungle-rules full contact bowling scenario he wants in his lane.

He does NOT have the right to come to my lane and interrupt my game on the pretense that it's a game and we're all in the same bowling alley. And pretending to be helpful as an excuse to have him come to my lane just so he can keep sinking gutterballs on my turn, then saying "Well I play jungle-rules bowling" as a defense? Doesn't wash.

Again, that's the crux of the OP. There is a difference between playing the game in open as intended (jungle rules) and being as much of a jerk as you want (which is perfectly valid) and declaring all modes are jungle rules and feeling justified in going into anyone's game mode at any time to do whatever they want, regardless of the rules of the private groups.

There is a difference. One is valid gameplay, the other is not. Simple as that.

That's what the OP is all about. Everything being discussed after that is nitpicking the language.

Ah, ok. Language can be weird.

I'm an editor. Believe, me, I know.