PvP An Investigation Into Frontier's Actions on Combat Logging, Part 2

[Martian Successor]

As for people saying that because SDC brought this discussion up it is therefore not a valid issue because of SDC's reputation. That just doesn't make any logical sense people. A valid point is a valid point. It does not magically stop being valid via osmosis simply because it came from someone you don't like - that's kinder garden level thinking, I thought this forum was primarily populated by adults.

Let's look at it this way: If the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un issued a statement that said, "The amount of plastic we all dump into the world's oceans is destroying the marine environment." Would that make the truth of the statement any less true just because it came from evil baby huey?

 

[Arguendo]

As for people saying that because SDC brought this discussion up it is therefore not a valid issue because of SDC's reputation.

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"^{[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#cite_note-1"][1][/URL]}), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Not an uncommon practice I'm afraid.

 

[StiTch]

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"^{[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#cite_note-1"][1][/URL]}), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Not an uncommon practice I'm afraid.

I usually refer to Politics as Ad Hominem in da Commons.

So, I take it you became the arbiter of what is a fair game?

Because often the discussion is about "what is fair?". There is no complete lack of willingness to construct a fair game. Of course there isn't.

Please.

By fair I mean both ability to take part in an objective discussion and desire to implement equal gameplay.

If you truly believe that the witch hunts don't exist here, you're way more naive than I had ya down for mate. And while I appreciate not everyone on the PvP side is pristine, we're actually very capable of fair discussion that caters to both PvP and PvE gameplay. Almost any suggestion towards, say, C&P includes some very tasty punishment for criminals as an example.

 

[jasonbarron]

I have also "lost my connection" when facing danger and i admit it, i am also sure it will happen again.

That looks dangerously like you're admitting to wilfully combatlogging.

This isn't "dangerously close to admitting to willfully clogging." It's walking right up to Fdevs doorstep, dropping trousers and taking a dump right on their welcome mat, then walking away with a laugh and a jaunty bounce to his step.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

By fair I mean both ability to take part in an objective discussion and desire to implement equal gameplay.

And you describe taking part in an objective discussion as "to construct a fair game".

If you truly believe that the witch hunts don't exist here, you're way more naive than I had ya down for mate. And while I appreciate not everyone on the PvP side is pristine, we're actually very capable of fair discussion that caters to both PvP and PvE gameplay. Almost any suggestion towards, say, C&P includes some very tasty punishment for criminals as an example.

No, I just read English, and it said "to construct a fair game", nothing about discussion.

Being capable of a fair discussion is completely unrelated to the third letter in the acronym PvX.

 

[Martian Successor]

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"^{[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#cite_note-1"][1][/URL]}), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Not an uncommon practice I'm afraid.

Sadly yes. Although SDC are absolutely to blame for their own bad rep, there's no denying that. However some people need to learn to seperate their dislike of SDC's conduct and the ability to recognise the existence of a valid issue. It's really not all that hard to not react to everything as if it were a binary option of either black or white. I managed to do it with my first post in this thread where I simultaneously took the pee on SDC for being Lance Armstrong telling us about the ills of cheating and also acknowledged the point being made was a valid one regardless.

 

[Riverside]

As for people saying that because SDC brought this discussion up it is therefore not a valid issue because of SDC's reputation. That just doesn't make any logical sense people. A valid point is a valid point. It does not magically stop being valid via osmosis simply because it came from someone you don't like - that's kinder garden level thinking, I thought this forum was primarily populated by adults.

Let's look at it this way: If the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un issued a statement that said, "The amount of plastic we all dump into the world's oceans is destroying the marine environment." Would that make the truth of the statement any less true just because it came from evil baby huey?

It's still a valid issue. It's undermined by threads like this.

Sadly yes. Although SDC are absolutely to blame for their own bad rep, there's no denying that. However some people need to learn to seperate their dislike of SDC's conduct and the ability to recognise the existence of a valid issue. It's really not all that hard to not react to everything as if it were a binary option of either black or white. I managed to do with my first post in this thread where I simulataneously took the pee on SDC for being Lance Armstrong telling us about the ills of cheating and also acknowledged the point being made was a valid one regardless.

Both sides need to get a grip.

 

[StiTch]

And you describe taking part in an objective discussion as "to construct a fair game".

No, I just read English, and it said "to construct a fair game", nothing about discussion.

Being capable of a fair discussion is completely unrelated to the third letter in the acronym PvX.

You're much better than desperately digging for semantic footholds mate.

It's still a valid issue. It's undermined by threads like this.

Undermined by unequivocal proof FD are lying?

 

[Martian Successor]

This isn't "dangerously close to admitting to willfully clogging." It's walking right up to Fdevs doorstep, dropping trousers and taking a dump right on their welcome mat, then walking away with a laugh and a jaunty bounce to his step.

It's okay, all is good as long you don't make a thread explaining how combat logging affects PvE. Now that's shut down material! Can't have the truth showing it's ugly face.

 

[Cmdr Esteban]

Arguendo, I can't deny that you've raised some valid points during this thread, and then...

...single-player mentality (God mode) into a multiplayer game.

...you sweepingly insulted all who enjoy playing Elite as a single-player game.

Most unfortunate.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You're much better than desperately digging for semantic footholds mate.

I know. That's why I didn't.

Address the post or not. Don't tell me I am desperately digging for semantic footholds when I am just addressing what you wrote.

edit: posts are disappearing.

 

[jasonbarron]

It's still a valid issue. It's undermined by threads like this.

No, SDC isn't undermining the situation at all. If anything it constitutes literally the only activity taking by the community OR fdev to shine a light on this issue. Frontier's response is to send Paige in here with a post about how they "secretly" police the game and then sneak the topic into the rubbish heap so it could (hopefully) just die, and 3/4's of the community itself more or less support clogging as a feature because "people like SDC bring it on themselves." The only undermining going on is Fdev's lack of proper leadership and enforcement of their own ruleset.

 

[Martian Successor]

It's still a valid issue. It's undermined by threads like this.

It's a valid issue regardless. Threads like this at least create some attention towards it rather than have it be forgotten or allow untruths about its impact to spread. Untruths like, "oh it's a PvP-only issue."

Both sides need to get a grip.

Agree with you there. But when one side refuses to get a grip the other usually follows suit and it becomes an eye for an eye affair. That's why it's important to have a non-biased and tactful moderation approach to calm things down. Unfortunately we don't have the luxury of that.

 

[StiTch]

I know. That's why I didn't.

Address the post or not. Don't tell me I am desperately digging for semantic footholds when I am just addressing what you wrote.

edit: posts are disappearing.

Neither PvP players nor PvE players have the ability to "construct" a fair game - only FD can as the developers. So from a literal perspective no, no-one can "construct" anything. But we can "discuss" matters in the hope of influencing that development.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

Firstly, no - I have reinforced CLing is banned in PvP and PvE, and has negative implications for both.

Secondly, you have openly accepted the exploit is perceived as a PvP issue. If you believe the PvE base to have their hands clean, boy, have I got some some news for you: deliberately taking the most negative possible incidences and taking actions or words out of context, to support an agenda borne of sheer vitriol, is nothing new. Sure some PvP folk might have fun in a way you don't like in-game, but the words of many folks opposing it for no real reason in the forum have been far more malicious and unconstructive.

And yet again, you have shown this yourself: you've immediately reverted to complaining that we're trying to get seals in to Open to club right after I reinforce that many of OP's complaints have been aimed at a known murderer that CLogs.

Hang on, have you been even reading what I've said? I completely agree about the known Murder who combat logs. They should be punished. I have always said that. I understand why Zac and Pagie are not going to go into the specifics about how they get those numbers, because people will always try to (Excuse the pun) game the system but I would like Frontier to release some kind of statistics showing the number of people who have been dealt with and in what manner.

All I have been saying is that the people just think it's the SDC stirring it again. Because of their past behaviour, they don't get any sympathy or understanding of the issue. Pvp'rs will have to deal with the fact that most PvPs are seen as cheating murder-hobos because of those past actions of Engineer Exploits and MObius invasions even if they didn't have anything to do with it.

 

[jasonbarron]

It's okay, all is good as long you don't make a thread explaining how combat logging affects PvE. Now that's shut down material! Can't have the truth showing it's ugly face.

Did that happen to something you wrote? If so, I missed it.

 

[Omega Fighter]

This isn't "dangerously close to admitting to willfully clogging." It's walking right up to Fdevs doorstep, dropping trousers and taking a dump right on their welcome mat, then walking away with a laugh and a jaunty bounce to his step.

Everything i have written is true, FD can investigate me again if they want but we all know how will it end.

 

[Riverside]

You're much better than desperately digging for semantic footholds mate.




Undermined by unequivocal proof FD are lying?

Undermined by the way it is presented. You can see this for yourself from responses in this thread. It hasn't gained support, all the supporters already recognise the problem.

Get behind a solution, not just trying to make FDev look bad.

 

[StiTch]

All I have been saying is that the people just think it's the SDC stirring it again. Because of their past behaviour, they don't get any sympathy or understanding of the issue. Pvp'rs will have to deal with the fact that most PvPs are seen as cheating murder-hobos because of those past actions of Engineer Exploits and MObius invasions even if they didn't have anything to do with it.

Which as described above is Ad Hominem.

There is some very well taken and drawn up evidence in OP. Players are welcome to deny it because they don't like SDC's playstyle, but that's on themselves - it would be like me refusing to discuss C&P because I don't like PvE players.

In the forums, debate the post...not the poster. Right? Right.

Undermined by the way it is presented. You can see this for yourself from responses in this thread. It hasn't gained support, all the supporters already recognise the problem.

Get behind a solution, not just trying to make FDev look bad.

It's presented perfectly well with some very solid evidence - and nay, it's not our place, right, nor responsibility to do FD's moderation for them. It's up to them to enforce their own rules, and if they fail to, the best we can do is call them out on it.

 

[ryan_m]

No, SDC isn't undermining the situation at all. If anything it constitutes literally the only activity taking by the community OR fdev to shine a light on this issue. Frontier's response is to send Paige in here with a post about how they "secretly" police the game and then sneak the topic into the rubbish heap so it could (hopefully) just die, and 3/4's of the community itself more or less support clogging as a feature because "people like SDC bring it on themselves." The only undermining going on is Fdev's lack of proper leadership and enforcement of their own ruleset.

You don't get it. If there is even the smallest bit of character issues that exist, the entire thing is invalid. If Jesus Christ himself posted this, there would be a post saying "oh but you guys remember when his dad killed all those people? I'm glad FDev isn't enforcing the rules."