Welcome to the danger zone, my friend.
- Status
Welcome to the danger zone, my friend.
i thought we where talking about ganks in general. nothing should change in law free zone... I guess i could see how it comes off like that as i said explorers in there (my bad).
although i didn't advocate for it
i guess if it did happen, it would have very little effect on most gankers...so good point.
Last edited:
you say: ''As for how that lack of empathy works, it does not extend to inconsequential things like space pixels in a video game''
But people become emotionally attached to the game and situation.. ty, you have show what i mean. As you cant see the emotional attachment some other player have, and how they are viewing the world. as you see it one way and they see it in a way you cant understand... but, they could learn to understand how you see it.
just how it is. Being on the spectrum does not give you expertise in the condition. You are on the inside looking out and expressing exactly what i have pointed out.
you see the world as 'You are not a victim of anything that matters when you lose a ship in this game.'
but a lot of people who need to understand why they where killed , well it does matter. You can only try to understand this on an intellectual level.
as for 'Hi, I'm autistic, and I'm more than capable of telling people how I see the world just fine' i'm sure you can, and sure most can, but (and now we get into term that poeple are gonna get all silly about) humans communicate in metaphors ones they build up form their own experiences and understanding. you explanation of how you see the world, explained in your metaphors, will translate differently to someone of a different world viwe, with their own metaphors. <i know that all sound whoo-ho, but it's how be communicate our experiences.
Not trying to put down about you have said,
...People would surfer real upset over a Tamagotchi dying (a little black and white electronic pet, even babysitting services for them, to keep them alive ><), this is what you can't process. this illogical, irrational mind set of emotion, and empathy for something that not even real.
'But you're not being hurt when you lose a ship in Elite. You aren't even losing anything real. And you aren't trying to help anyone but yourself.'
So i may be some rando
Just because I lack empathy for randoms I don't know, doesn't mean I don't understand how people can get emotionally attached to things, and if they're getting emotionally attached to a video game, that's entirely on them, and it's nobody else's obligation to neither appreciate or respect that emotional attachment.
Being on the spectrum doesn't make me an 'expert', no, but it gives me experience. And that experience alone makes me more of an expert than someone who isn't on the spectrum. But that's not all the experience I have, so be careful not to make assumptions you can't back up, because what actually makes me an expert is the research I'm privy to. Research that is, unfortunately, mostly behind a paywall, so linking it here won't help. There is some that's not behind a paywall, though.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.e...=Psychometric_analysis_of_the_empathy_quo.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886906002212
They're all extremely off topic though, because what you're doing is trying to systematically categorise a set of behaviours that you want to bring under control. The method you're using to justify bringing them under control is called 'othering', ie attempting to make the behaviour appear to be the result of abnormal human traits, traits that are otherwise non-standard in the human population, or behaviour that is otherwise less than human in general. If you can categorise the people doing it as 'special' and 'in need of help' it makes you look less like a bully, and more like a 'saviour'. Unfortunately for you, anyone with a modicum of real world experience knows that humans are violent by nature. Anyone with a modicum of experience in evolutionary biology knows this is a biological fact. We are a predator species, at the top of the food chain. Being at the top of the food chain is what makes us the dominant species on earth. That we're intelligent enough to build a civilisation is irrelevant in that regard - a species can be top of the food chain, and not know how to build cities.
The more intelligent a species, the higher up the food chain it is, and the higher up the food chain a species is, the more intelligent it is. As a result, the more intelligent a species is, the more predatory it becomes, and the more predatory a species becomes, the more territorial it gets as well. In a social species like humans, with the intelligence we have and all our modern comforts, that can come across as what we call 'anti-social behaviour', and we are actually able to categorise unhealthy anti-social behaviour. However, not all of what we call 'anti-social behaviour' is unhealthy, nor is it necessarily 'anti-social behaviour'.
Fortunately for us (but perhaps, unfortunately for you and your theories) gankers aren't doing anything that could realistically be categorised as anti-social behaviour. They're not wandering down dark allies with malicious intent, they're blowing up space pixels. And they're doing it with friends. Sounds social to me.
As for your assumptions of me, I'm more than capable of understanding why people get upset over their tamagotchi dying. I just don't care. I don't have to, and neither does anyone else. Nothing tangible has happened to that person, and the only people crying over their tamagotchi dying are people that have never experienced a greater loss. I, too, have been upset over silly, mundane things in the past. Then I started growing up and becoming an adult. I blew my knees playing sport, and lost an ADFA scholarship as a result. A few years later, working in the city doing sales, I was mugged for $12 and nearly killed after being impaled by a sharpened structural steel rod. It really puts things into perspective when you're on the brink of death, the things that really matter not just to you, but in general.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying people don't have a right to be upset. I'm just saying that other people have no reason to care that you're upset, especially over something so banal as a video game. It might not be banal to you, but to others with different experiences, it is. You're attributing this to some form of sociopathy. I'm attributing it to people who have a different perspective. And it's this difference in perspective that you just tried to use to justify the claim that I can't understand what other people are going through.
I suggest it's your lack of perspective that limits your ability to understand why people who've experienced REAL TANGIBLE HARDSHIP don't have any reason to give one seventeenth of a coitus about your exploded space pixels. It's not because they're autistic, or sociopathic, or otherwise anti-social. It's not because they're lesser humans than you, with lesser ideals, or because they're evil. It's because they have real lives, with real problems, and you don't.
So my suggestion to you is, stop trying to analyse people, and start trying to understand them instead. You don't do that by guessing, or making assumptions, you do that by talking to them.
Last edited:
wow, okay... first of, i didnt mean to upset you
Second, no, just no to document as back up to your views. we can go down that path and have 100s of links to different takes on the subject (and you know that).
you say : "But that's not all the experience I have, so be careful not to make assumptions you can't back up"
but you have already assumed a lot about me.
Now, what i have said so far, i really don't expect to gell with you. But it is there for people that arnt not in your position, to help them understand you. Sorry i have upset you, was really wanting to clear some issues up. best to leave it there i guess.this is exactly why i didn't wanna call out the condition >< but somehow it gonna be my fault. was not me that related them to it, they related to what i was saying.
(See, this is why i don't mix with people in RL unless i have to...)
I'm not doing well , so i'm gonna shut up before i upset someone else
have fun
Last edited:
wow, okay... first of, i didnt mean to upset you
Second, no, just no to document as back up to your views. we can go down that path and have 100s of links to different takes on the subject (and you know that).
you say : "But that's not all the experience I have, so be careful not to make assumptions you can't back up"
but you have already assumed a lot about me.
Now, what i have said so far, i really don't expect to gell with you. But it is there for people that arnt not in your position, to help them understand you. Sorry i have user you, was really wanting to clear some issues up. best to leave it there i guess.this is exactly why i didn't wanna call out the condition >< but somehow it gonna be my fault. was not me that related them to it, they related to what i was saying.
(See, this is why i don't mix with people in RL unless i have to...)
I'm not doing well , so i'm gonna shut up before i upset someone else
You didn't upset me. I was trying point out why your post is not just irrelevant to this conversation, but is also little more than an uneducated value judgement. You need to understand that, or you're going to keep saying these things and, eventually, actually upset someone. I don't know if you've noticed, but I've maintained perfectly respectful posting decorum, and I have not attacked you personally.
And no, you're right, those documents don't back up my views. They back up the facts. Facts are reality. You probably won't understand most of what those papers say, as most people don't, but rest assured they are grounded in real scientific endeavours to actually understand autism, endeavours that I am privy to and have been involved in, as both a research subject and researcher, for over twenty years.
There was absolutely no point in calling out the condition on this thread. None. It is completely unrelated to ganking. That's my point. It would not surprise me if none of the gankers are autistic. And here's me, an autistic person, not ganking but exploring. What are the odds? That question was rhetorical, so don't answer it, the odds are actually quite high. Most autistic people probably don't want to hang out with other people at all, and while I play in open, I very rarely do much in the way of 'hanging out'. Gankers are social creatures by nature, pack hunters. Are wolves autistic? No. No they're not.
So really, whether you wanted to 'call out' the condition or not is quite irrelevant, because bringing it up at all was quite irrelevant. I didn't call you out because I was offended or upset, I called you out because it's irrelevant. My interest here is in conversation, and debate. Getting to the bottom of things. And as it happens, you brought up a topic that is entirely within my purview. Naturally, I'm going to have something to say about that.
That's not a reason for you to run away. That's a reason for you to try to learn something, and develop a new understanding based on information you perhaps weren't privy to prior. Based on that new understanding, you could re-adjust your position and, subsequently, your arguments, maybe to such a degree that you'll develop stronger arguments that we'll have more trouble debating. Or, you can run away. It's entirely your prerogative.
But upset me you did not. If I was that easy to upset, I might be right there with you complaining about the ganking.
Last edited:
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Funny how so many fell victim then.
And you're ignoring the obvious, just like others; the sheer number of people on DW2.
Thus the proliferation of threads about "rampant ganking on explorers."
It's not me posting about it!
LOL
I am making none.
I suppose that means you are.
Don't.
Your SO will cheat on you.
Can you present the evidence for these objective facts?
And what conclusion do you draw? That the game needs to be changed in some way because griefing is a problem?
I play paranoid & even I don't worry about it any more, it's just a non-issue. Like everyone when I was new to the game I worried, and was more cautious than (as it turned out) I needed to be.
Different people come to different conclusions based on their personal experience, you are just another player & you took the path of being a bounty hunter IIRC, I play the potential target, trying to stay one step ahead of the hypothetical bogey man. That lots of people lost their ships very close to the start of a really long expedition isn't really anything more than a completely predictable learning opportunity for those who were caught out.
The best thing the game itself can do to mitigate this sort of problem (if it is to be considered one) is to clamp down on CLogging. In my view the biggest issue acting against player-led security issues is Clogging Griefers. Once that hurdle is addressed a whole bunch of other potential solutions emerge.
If it is considered a problem at all.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
That many explorers are getting blown up?
That is self evident and there is documentation from DG2.
That the mere existence of hotspots proves my point?
Those would be by definition, places where the probability of meeting another player would be greater.
I'm not about to start entertaining a strawman army if that's what you had in mind!
'Many' is what we call weasel words in the skeptical community. Can you tell me how many? Is it a 'many' that makes for statistical significance? Because that matters. If it's not statistically significant, then it's an outlier and a non-issue.
There is video evidence of explorers getting blown up, sure. Where's the evidence that it's 'many'? Where's the evidence of how many? Where's the evidence that proves those explorers didn't have options that would have increased their odds of not being blown up?
Where's the evidence that this is a problem with the game that needs a developer solution?
Nobody's done this. Where is this coming from? What's it a response to?
That's called 'projection'. We've asked you a range of questions with the purpose of clarifying your information and assertions, in order to ascertain their accuracy. You have refused to answer them and instead, make accusations. There is no better definition for 'bad faith' debate than your behaviour right now. Disagreeing with you does not bad faith argumentation make. You've given us no reason to agree, so why should we?
Actuality, no, maybe i should not be quite. your using a bully victim card on me. You assume i don't know the subject.Or Lived with it and with other on many level of the spectrum. You seem you assume i'm not intelligent. You assume you understand what i have said, but have show what i was explaining. There is a reason i think in backward constructed sentences, there is a reason i don't like to mix with Real life people, but would rather study them... and a lot of other weird and wonderful things.
Imagine if there was someone that swing across the spectrum, almost like spit-personality (more of a chemical imbalance)*1... dam, it would give them an insight some could not have, and would be very useful to use that to try and help people understand each other. Granted, in not skilled in the way i communicate things, i'm always working on that. And as we have seen, it seems i come of a condescending, when i don't mean to.
you see, there nothing special about you that puts your understanding above mine, we are in the same boat, apart from i have have that spectrum swing (sound like a cool dance). This is why i not pandering to you.
You are trying to make your point from an untouchable platform, using the protection of your condition. Its not fair, and something i could easily do as well, but wont be a victim of my disabilities.
the important parts
I know you wont understand what i have explained in reference to empathy, you even prove what i was saying again and again, but , you just cant see it.
this: ''As for your assumptions of me, I'm more than capable of understanding why people get upset over their tamagotchi dying. I just don't care. I don't have to, and neither does anyone else. Nothing tangible has happened to that person''
this is what i was referring to, the way you cant relate. you call it ''I just don't care. I don't have to'', that is the disconnect, that you don't care. you understand it on a logical intercultural level, as i have explain, but you don't care... its illogical for you to have empathy for someone else who had made an emotional attachment to such a thing.
This is what i was saying, this is also what you have show in your words >< It's there for all to see. and we can see that you cant see it yourself. There will be others in the same boat as you , who cant see it and will agree with your point. This is why, what i have explained is for the people that are not you... as they are the ones that need to understand you, you cant understand their needs.
This is very relevant to the topic, in some cases, as it helps us see why there is a disconnect between some gankers and people that get upset when Ganked... Now if i get a warning, told of or something like that (on the forum) for explain this, to try and help (its a difficult topic) instead of being it this pointless talk about ganking (that we have over and over a...
well, It would be a shame.
1*) im one cooky case
Last edited:
Meh, people are often careless.
This disproves your own argument, these are DWE2 ganks, they are not representative of common exploration, if they were, we would have this amount of complains all year round but we don't.
You either meant "and" or "a", I know this because "an" is only used for substantives that begin with a vowel so your phrase is grammatically incorrect.
Edit: And "a" wouldn't make much sense in your sentence, so I'm virtually sure you wanted to write "and" but forgot to type "d".
Huh, you got close enough, the fact is I don't pretend to get married but instead simply remain as a boyfriend to avoid legal and finantial ties and no, I won't have children.
Last edited:
No, I didn't see that at all. I saw someone trying to explain to you that it's not the ONLY exploration going on, which is a fact. Nobody has claimed it's not 'real' exploration. Unless you have a post to quote on that which proves me wrong. Do you? Because if you do, I'm right there with you, it's a nonsense and irrelevant argument.
If not, then I'm afraid I must insist you cease these diversions and at least attempt some measure of intellectual honesty.
I'm struggling to see the logic here. You stated a bunch of objective facts, and you conclude something entirely unrelated.
I have stated my position in this topic. What's yours?
No, I didn't use any cards on you. Just facts. Autism is irrelevant here, and I've told you exactly why, and in no uncertain terms, why people without autism also have no reason to care. Your ignorance of the respectful explanations I've provided you is not my problem, nor is your feeling of guilt, so move on, and get over it. If you keep going off topic with these irrelevant armchair analyses of yours, I'm going to start reporting you. I have lost patience with your disingenuity.
Last edited:
Oh I've been keeping up. The reason you can't share the post I'm asking for is because it doesn't exist. Now you're just outright lying, and projecting your lying onto others. You no longer warrant polite discourse, and as impolite discourse will result in a ban, I'm just going to add you to my ignore list. You aren't bringing anything constructive to this conversation anyway, so you just aren't worth my time any longer.
This is the post Bob is saying is a problem, s/he quoted it earlier & bolded the first paragraph.
- Status