Going against your own word - "infiltrators" please note

[Rampant]

To be fair, I'm a bit loose with the road traffic speed limits when out on my bike. However, asides from that I'm a law abiding citizen. It's just an open road is a temptation I find irresistable at times.

(Note: I dont take the mickey though, Im aware of my own mortality and skill limitations. Im not a nutter. Right time, right place and all that. Ive been on 2 wheels for over 30yrs)

Although, when in my car I am 'driving miss daisy' and just go with the flow and in no particular hurry. So, I do break laws. Does that make me untrustworthy? I dont think so. I would not, for instance, knowingly break the law or adopt behaviour just for the sake of it (bikes aside). On the whole, I am very trustworthy. I keep my word.

I dont think the untrustworthy label fits, however thats not to say it wasnt a rotten thing to do. So is my speeding to be fair, but that only affects me. Not others. (unless it goes wrong and I kill myself)

To add context....

It appears that you cannot be trusted to keep to speed limits when out on your bike. True?

In no way am I moralising. For the record, come the "derestricted" sign, I play it free and easy with speed limits when out in any of my sportscars. I cannot therefore be trusted to stay within "national" speed limits. However, my personal standards mean that 30 and 40 limits are sacrosanct. In those environments I am more trustworthy than 85% of all other road users. Still doesn't change the fact that I'm untrustworthy when the white circle with black stripe hoves into view.
That's the entire point.
In the context of this game, *players* who "infiltrate" well known PvE *only* PGs, those players cannot be trusted within the context of this game. Remember, it's the "*player* that made the premeditated choice. Not their roleplay character.

Case rests.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Haha, if only...

 

[Rampant]

In the narrow context of "trusting" them to follow PG rules? Obviously they have demonstrated that they will disregard those rules so if that is all you mean then sure, that's a reasonable statement to make under those specific circumstances if you do not extend it beyond that directly observable pattern of behavior. However, your argument has not been that focused or nuanced and has instead been extended to the "player" being inherently untrustworthy as distinct from their "character" in-game. You have been trying to attribute personal tendencies towards being "trustworthy" without considering that for those individuals, disregarding the PG rules may simply be part of "playing the game" and have no bearing whatsoever on other decisions that person usually makes.



It's not really a "fact", it's just an observation about their behavior in that specific context. You might not trust someone or consider them "trustworthy" but all you can objectively comment on is observable tendencies towards certain behaviors. No one can be "trusted" 100% of the time, under all circumstances, and trust by definition is a very subject concept in many situations. You can't really go around claiming to have "facts" or "absolute truth" when it comes to making a subjective decision to trust someone.



It's really isn't "that simple".

First, if you want to talk about trust, you need to know what you're actually referring to. Behavior? Intent? Reliability? All of those factors relate to trust and are really different concepts. You are taking a subjective decision to "trust" someone and then extending the concept of their "trustworthiness" as if it were an objective "fact". It is not a "fact" whether you decide to trust someone. It is simply a decision you have made not only based on observable facts but also on your own emotions.

Second, whether or not you personally trust someone is completely separate from their observable pattern of behavior. One (behavior) is directly observable, the other (trust) is an emotionally-laden and therefore subjective concept. Individuals will sometimes continue to "trust" someone long after it becomes clear that their behavior is completely counter to that "trust". You cannot use the concept of "trust" as if it were somehow a "fact" without making a clear distinction between the behavior itself and whether you have decided to trust that person.

I'll give you an example. I routinely treat patients with severe addictions issues in an acute hospital setting. I don't refer to "trust" when I discuss their substance use patterns because it has too many pejorative connotations and isn't a particularly useful concept for various reasons. I do, however frequently refer to patterns of behavior, intent and reliability about whether they have been using recently and their likelihood of relapse. I also refer to various interventions that will minimize this. Whether or not I "trust" them or consider them "trustworthy" isn't really relevant here because I am not basing this on my subjective decision on whether I "trust" them, I am basing it on what I can observe.

For example, I can observe a change in their behavior that indicates they have used a substance, can I detect the presence of that substance with laboratory testing and I can determine if this correlates with what they have told me about their substance use. When these observations are discrepant then I will certainly address that the information they are giving does not appear to be accurate. I do not simply decide they aren't "trustworthy" as a sweeping statement however and I always address each situation individually. It's possible that there is another explanation for their change in behavior, a lab test may be giving a false positive or negative result and an individual may not always realize they were using a specific substance. I still obviously have a sense of "trust" based on these patterns of behavior, but I recognize it as subjective and prone to attribution bias and various other complex emotional factors. My job is not to simply decide if someone is "trustworthy" and use this as a basis for my clinical decisions, my job involves a much more complex understanding of their behavior and decision making.

What you are doing with players who refuse to follow PG rules is taking a very limited observation about a player's behavior in a specific gaming context and are making sweeping statements about whether those players are "trustworthy" or not. You have also been repeatedly characterizing your statements about trustworthiness as a "fact" or "absolute truth". I'm sorry but you can't make sweeping statements about trustworthiness that are inherently subjective and expect anyone else to accept them as "fact" when they are not.

Didn't read your wall of text beyond the FACT that you agreed that players who go against their word are not to be trusted.

At last. You realised your error. Only took several reiterations of me saying incontrovertible truth. Some people can be so stubborn and obtuse that even when they finally concede the incontrovertible truth, they *still* post a wall of text. (Which I didn't read).

Cheerz

Mark H

 

[Devari]

Didn't read your wall of text

First, my post is organized quite well into paragraphs and is hardly a wall of text. Second, admitting that you didn't actually read my post before replying tells me you aren't actually interested in having a productive or meaningful discussion on the topic.

beyond the FACT that you agreed that players who go against their word are not to be trusted.

That is not what I actually said at all. Please re-read my post and stop trolling.

At last. You realised your error.

Which "error" would this be exactly? I've very clearly pointed out the errors in your statements, specifically, your attribution bias, your inability to adequately distinguish subjective "trustworthiness" from observable patterns of behavior, as well as your repeated tendency to refer to your incorrect conclusions as "fact" when they very clearly are not.

Only took several reiterations of me saying incontrovertible truth. Some people can be so stubborn and obtuse that even when they finally concede the incontrovertible truth, they *still* post a wall of text. (Which I didn't read).

Sorry but you're really going to have to start reading posts before you reply to them if you want to have a productive conversation.

 

[Rampant]

Haha, if only...

I invite you to elaborate. Construct a sanguine argument. Or not. Either way, this kind of abbreviated post is just sand.

I'm looking for golf balls in the mayonnaise jar. Filling it with sand means there's no space for the golf balls. Or the marbles or the peas. Sand is worthless. Golf balls are not. At the very least, if you can't stretch your intellect to golf balls,, try to give us marbles or peas....

"You should try it sometime."

Slàinte Mhath

Mark H

 

[Chaparral]

According to the lifesaving classes I took with the American Red Cross:

Each person leaves, on average, 1 gram of feces in a public hot tub/jacuzzi.

Damn - swam my 2km at the gym today. Oh well, I bet my immune system is like a prismatic.

 

[Devari]

I invite you to elaborate. Construct a sanguine argument.

Given that you replied to my post without actually reading and decided to engage in trolling behavior instead, I would like to offer an appropriate meme in reply:

 

[Jereaca]

In the narrow context of "trusting" them to follow PG rules? Obviously they have demonstrated that they will disregard those rules so if that is all you mean then sure, that's a reasonable statement to make under those specific circumstances if you do not extend it beyond that directly observable pattern of behavior. However, your argument has not been that focused or nuanced and has instead been extended to the "player" being inherently untrustworthy as distinct from their "character" in-game. You have been trying to attribute personal tendencies towards being "trustworthy" without considering that for those individuals, disregarding the PG rules may simply be part of "playing the game" and have no bearing whatsoever on other decisions that person usually makes.



It's not really a "fact", it's just an observation about their behavior in that specific context. You might not trust someone or consider them "trustworthy" but all you can objectively comment on is observable tendencies towards certain behaviors. No one can be "trusted" 100% of the time, under all circumstances, and trust by definition is a very subjective concept in many situations. You can't really go around claiming to have "facts" or "absolute truth" when it comes to making a subjective decision to trust someone.



It's really isn't "that simple".

First, if you want to talk about trust, you need to know what you're actually referring to. Behavior? Intent? Reliability? All of those factors relate to trust and are really different concepts. You are taking a subjective decision to "trust" someone and then extending the concept of their "trustworthiness" as if it were an objective "fact". It is not a "fact" whether you decide to trust someone. It is simply a decision you have made not only based on observable facts but also on your own emotions.

Second, whether or not you personally trust someone is completely separate from their observable pattern of behavior. One (behavior) is directly observable, the other (trust) is an emotionally-laden and therefore subjective concept. Individuals will sometimes continue to "trust" someone long after it becomes clear that their behavior is completely counter to that "trust". You cannot use the concept of "trust" as if it were somehow a "fact" without making a clear distinction between the behavior itself and whether you have decided to trust that person.

I'll give you an example. I routinely treat patients with severe addictions issues in an acute hospital setting. I don't refer to "trust" when I discuss their substance use patterns because it has too many pejorative connotations and isn't a particularly useful concept for various reasons. I do, however frequently refer to patterns of behavior, intent and reliability about whether they have been using recently and their likelihood of relapse. I also refer to various interventions that will minimize this. Whether or not I "trust" them or consider them "trustworthy" isn't really relevant here because I am not basing this on my subjective decision on whether I "trust" them, I am basing it on what I can observe.

For example, I can observe a change in their behavior that indicates they have used a substance, can I detect the presence of that substance with laboratory testing and I can determine if this correlates with what they have told me about their substance use. When these observations are discrepant then I will certainly address that the information they are giving does not appear to be accurate. I do not simply decide they aren't "trustworthy" as a sweeping statement however and I always address each situation individually. It's possible that there is another explanation for their change in behavior, a lab test may be giving a false positive or negative result and an individual may not always realize they were using a specific substance. I still obviously have a sense of "trust" based on these patterns of behavior, but I recognize it as subjective and prone to attribution bias and various other complex emotional factors. My job is not to simply decide if someone is "trustworthy" and use this as a basis for my clinical decisions, my job involves a much more complex understanding of their behavior and decision making.

What you are doing with players who refuse to follow PG rules is taking a very limited observation about a player's behavior in a specific gaming context and are making sweeping statements about whether those players are "trustworthy" or not. You have also been repeatedly characterizing your statements about trustworthiness as a "fact" or "absolute truth". I'm sorry but you can't make sweeping statements about trustworthiness that are inherently subjective and expect anyone else to accept them as "fact" when they are not.

I am becoming really curious, just what behavior do you think it would take to label a person/player not to be trusted to not shoot another player in a PvE private group.

Having already engaged in PvP in a PvE PG seems to me they have demonstrated they can not reliably be counted on not to do it.

 

[Ian Skippy]

I am becoming really curious, just what behavior do you think it would take to label a person/player not to be trusted to not shoot another player in a PvE private group.

Having already engaged in PvP in a PvE PG seems to me they have demonstrated they can not reliably be counted on not to do it.

Sure, but only in that context. If you claim that persom cannot be trusted beyond shooting others in a PG, that is where the issue is. OP has a history of claiming people who shoot your spaceship in pg (or previously in general) are untrustworthy psychopaths in 'real life'. That is what people argue against.

 

[Devari]

I am becoming really curious, just what behavior do you think it would take to label a person/player not to be trusted to not shoot another player in a PvE private group.

The behavior of intentionally breaking the PG group's rules (i.e., not just an accidental use of weapons or an isolated occurrence) is reasonable grounds to exclude them from that PG. That is well within the scope of the current PG system and the responsibility for this lies with the players who create the PG to monitor and enforce their own rules. That player could reasonably be referred to as someone who is not "trusted" to follow those rules in the PG. They have broken the rules of the PG and should removed from the PG. They should not, however, be expected to suffer any other "consequences" or "punishment" beyond that.

Having already engaged in PvP in a PvE PG seems to me they have demonstrated they can not reliably be counted on not to do it.

Yes, that would be a reasonable conclusion if you limited it to the observed behavior in following PG rules relating to PVP activities. That is not, however, what the OP has been limiting their argument to. The suggestion has been that those players are not just breaking PG rules, and should not be trusted in that specific context, but that somehow they are inherently "untrustworthy" as a general statement.

I don't try to extend in-game behavior to other contexts even when I strongly disagree with the behavior in question. For example, consider the engineering exploit that was widely used by the major PVP groups for around a year. Those groups were blatantly cheating and in the context of PVP interactions in Open are obviously not trustworthy because they were repeatedly engaging in that behavior over an extended period of time. Eventually FD removed the mods obtained by exploits with no other consequences in terms of any in-game restrictions or bans. I would not consider the members of those PVP groups to be trustworthy in terms of engaging in fair PVP behavior because they have repeatedly done exactly the opposite. It would not, however, be reasonable to suggest that simply because those PVP players have very obviously cheated in an online game that they are inherently "untrustworthy" individuals in other contexts. I can't conclude that they would be more likely to cheat on their taxes, or cheat on their spouse or cheat in a game of poker. What the OP is trying to do is rely on an emotional argument about behavior in a specific gaming context to label those players as inherently "untrustworthy" as a general statement.

 

[bitstorm]

Yes, that would be a reasonable conclusion if you limited it to the observed behavior in following PG rules relating to PVP activities. That is not, however, what the OP has been limiting their argument to. The suggestion has been that those players are not just breaking PG rules, and should not be trusted in that specific context, but that somehow they are inherently "untrustworthy" as a general statement.

Well that's just silly.

If you agree not to shoot another player in a PG and you then go killing other players you've shown you can't be taken on your word, and therefore cannot be trusted.

I mean that obvious isn't it? It's a demonstration that you're the type of person to say one thing and then go do something else.

 

[Devari]

Well that's just silly.

If you agree not to shoot another player in a PG and you then go killing other players you've shown you can't be taken on your word, and therefore cannot be trusted.

"Cannot be trusted" in what context? To follow the PG rules? Obviously not, they just broke them and can be reasonably expected to break them in the future. To not be a trustworthy human being? No, you can't really say that without far more detailed information and observable behavior.

I mean that obvious isn't it? It's a demonstration that you're the type of person to say one thing and do something else.

Except that simply refusing to follow rules in a specific context in an online game with basically no significant or material consequences is not the same as being inherently untrustworthy in other contexts.

 

[Jereaca]

Sure, but only in that context. If you claim that persom cannot be trusted beyond shooting others in a PG, that is where the issue is. OP has a history of claiming people who shoot your spaceship in pg (or previously in general) are untrustworthy psychopaths in 'real life'. That is what people argue against.

Can I make assumptions about player in RL no, but I would sure as heck be even more careful than normal dealing with them. They have already demonstrated they do not necessarily follow up on agreed terms.

As for in game, if they have demonstrated they can not be trusted in area A personally I would not be inclined to trust them elsewhere either.

 

[bitstorm]

"Cannot be trusted" in what context? To follow the PG rules? Obviously not, they just broke them and can be reasonably expected to break them in the future. To not be a trustworthy human being? No, you can't really say that without far more detailed information and observable behavior.



Except that simply refusing to follow rules in a specific context in an online game with basically no significant or material consequences is not the same as being inherently untrustworthy in other contexts.

I don't know what to say, it is literally a demonstration that that person will agree to something, in order to gain entry to an event, and then just go back on what they've said.

If that's not an example of being untrustworthy I don't know what is.

I suspect the only reason you think it doesn't count is because it's "over the internet" and you don't know the people who decided those rules were needed in the first place, and subsequently had to deal with all the hassle caused by people who'll happily lie to gain entry to a group in order to cause trouble..

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Part of my point here is that since the agreement is between *players* prior to entering ( and not their characters ), we can quite feasibly do 2 things:

First, we can make factual comments on the player. The agreement they made is not "inside the game" as it is when pledging, or forming a wing or meeting with "friends" in the game. Ergo, we can make comments about the actual trustworthiness and actual moral fibre of the *player* themselves. Importantly, these comments would be factual and not merely subjective. They broke their word. They have no honour as humans, etc. Fact.

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.

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

My whole persona is based on a character.

Are you one of the people that cant understand the difference in a pro wrestler vs their real life, Someone like Andy Kaufman or Boogie from youtube.

Elite Dangerous gives people the chance to blaze their own trail. It gives people the chance to be something they aren't. It gives people a chance to BE someone in the universe.

Infiltrating a PG is not a personal attack. But instead if someone does that, you get to get away with attacking the person personally that would do it.

Currently there are many reasons to infiltrate a PG. I can think of a few off the top of my head.

Does this mean they are bad people in real life? Does that mean they want to do bad things in real life? Hell no.

The only people that take this personally are the ones that cant differentiate the things that happens in a video game vs real life.

To say someone does such a thing is a reflection of their personal behavior as a person outside of the game in normal everyday life is absurd.

I brought this up elsewhere. But whats the difference in attacking these guys in a PG, and the person going to a PG or Solo to attack a player group? They both are after the same end goal and yet one of them is okay to do and the other is not. Both are mechanics in the game. But because someone blows someone else up in a PG vs working against a group in a PG expanding and working together is perfectly fine against someone else...

Lots of double standards around here.

Its okay to remove yourselves to affect someone else. But god forbid if someone invades a PG to kill a large group of people.

How is one worse than the other? And what makes you think its okay to get away with it, while chastising the other side?

If one is okay, then both are okay. Or they both need to be a grief. You cant say one is a grief and the other is not if the goals are the same and thats affecting other people intentionally.

 

[bitstorm]

The only people that take this personally are the ones that cant differentiate the things that happens in a video game vs real life.

I think I'd disagree with that.

The only people struggling to differentiate the game from real life, are those that think that it's the CMDR signing up to DW2 and not the player.

And those that have no idea how much real life time and effort has to be put into organizing and managing something like DW2.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I think I'd disagree with that.

The only people struggling to differentiate the game from real life, are those that think that it's the CMDR signing up to DW2 and not the player.

And those that have no idea how much real life time and effort has to be put into organizing and managing something like DW2.

Does the activity matter? (This is a trick question)

 

[Devari]

As for in game, if they have demonstrated they can not be trusted in area A personally I would not be inclined to trust them elsewhere either.

Yes, obviously, but that is not the same as claiming that they are inherently "untrustworthy". That is simply being cautious based on available information about their behavior, rather than trying to suggest that they are inherently "untrustworthy" people.

There are various levels of trust based on the nature of an interaction and for some reason that has been completely lost on the OP. I trust my mechanic at my local dealership to do the work I pay him to complete to a competent standard. Otherwise I would not take my car there for repairs. I do not, however, trust him to give me unbiased advice about how to get my work done in the cheapest manner possible. Does that mean my mechanic is "untrustworthy"? Not necessarily, they are simply acting in their own best interest. Is the mechanic "lying" to me by not offering me other alternatives or suggesting that I pay for expensive work that I know is not actually necessary? Again, not necessarily. That is why we have different degrees of "trust" in human interactions and consider an "official" lie, i.e., lying under oath a criminal offense when someone commits perjury but don't criminalize most other types of deceit.

The only people who can categorically be labelled as "untrustworthy" across a wide range of interactions are psychopaths and, to a lesser extent, sociopaths. I'm referring here specifically to diagnosable conditions, i.e., conduct disorder, ASPD and psychopathy in clinical or forensic contexts. Those individuals will frequently lie, often very convincingly, and you could make general statements about their trustworthiness across a range of contexts. Psychopaths, however, have specific neurobiological factors relating to reduced limbic system reactivity as well as other genetic, environmental and social factors which contribute to their pathological lying behaviors. Unless you're dealing with a psychopath you need to assess an individual's trustworthiness in specific contexts across a wide range of conditions.

 

[Jereaca]

Does this mean they are bad people in real life? Does that mean they want to do bad things in real life? Hell no.

The only people that take this personally are the ones that cant differentiate the things that happens in a video game vs real life.

To say someone does such a thing is a reflection of their personal behavior as a person outside of the game in normal everyday life is absurd.

They have demonstrated a willingness to deceive people in one area, what is to stop them in another?

I brought this up elsewhere. But whats the difference in attacking these guys in a PG, and the person going to a PG or Solo to attack a player group? They both are after the same end goal and yet one of them is okay to do and the other is not. Both are mechanics in the game. But because someone blows someone else up in a PG vs working against a group in a PG expanding and working together is perfectly fine against someone else...

Lots of double standards around here.

Its okay to remove yourselves to affect someone else. But god forbid if someone invades a PG to kill a large group of people.

How is one worse than the other? And what makes you think its okay to get away with it, while chastising the other side?

If one is okay, then both are okay. Or they both need to be a grief. You cant say one is a grief and the other is not if the goals are the same and thats affecting other people intentionally.

To join private group A you need to agreed to not engage in deliberate PvP. You agree not to PvP in PG A then do so.

That behaviour is different then PvE activities that counteract a second player's PvE activity.

In one you deliberately deceive people to force them to engage in an activity they do not want, in the other you challange them to do it better

 

[Devari]

I don't know what to say, it is literally a demonstration that that person will agree to something, in order to gain entry to an event, and then just go back on what they've said.

What exactly did they "agree" to do beyond follow a set of arbitrary PG rules? What are the consequences to them not following those rules?

If that's not an example of being untrustworthy I don't know what is.

I suspect the only reason you think it doesn't count is because it's "over the internet" and you don't know the people who decided those rules were needed in the first place, and subsequently had to deal with all the hassle caused by people who'll happily lie to gain entry to a group in order to cause trouble..

I am saying that taking a specific interaction in an online game as being a reliable measure of their overall "trustworthiness" is nonsense. The consequences of not following the PG rules is basically zero and the behavior needs to be understood in that context.