Didya get a bucket or a bag ?
avoid maia in open play
- Thread starter SkyLeach
- Start date
- Status
SOMEONE GETS IT! THE ONLY "PLAY HOW YOU WANT" IS HOW YOU CHOOSE TO ACT!!! PRAISE ABOVE!
No, really. This is an exciting moment for me. You'd be surprised.
Bottom line, Open is Open. Anyone can do what they want, whether you see a reason for it or not, and it's part of a game. Whether you want inflect it as an active motive or simple enjoyment, that is irrelevant. We play to enjoy ourselves...?
If you want to do something about 'em, go vigilante and show 'em how it's done.
- - - Updated - - -
Mixed, please!
Not taking a shot (bad choice of words for a thread about griefers) but the way the term sociopath is thrown around bugs me. Somebody griefs you, you can call it a move or (insert whatever semi-offensive term you like) but the fact they killed you in game doesn't make them a sociopath. It makes them players in a video game with combat as one of its more profound elements.
I know a sociopath IRL. Not the murdering kind but a sociopath all the same. This...individual is a compulsive liar and manipulator with no real empathy or emotion. I'll gladly take your garden variety, household griefer over an actual sociopath any day of the week.
Again, not trying to be rude, just pointing improper use of the term.
I know a sociopath IRL. Not the murdering kind but a sociopath all the same. This...individual is a compulsive liar and manipulator with no real empathy or emotion. I'll gladly take your garden variety, household griefer over an actual sociopath any day of the week.
Again, not trying to be rude, just pointing improper use of the term.
I'm working that argument out, you're welcome to follow the thread if you like.
Ah, but we aren't talking about the morality of the in-game action: we are talking about the (my) judgement of the character of a person behaving in a specific pattern.
A sociopath is defined as:
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+sociopath&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 said:
Any game has boundaries (rules of play) around which normal acceptable enjoyment follows an acceptance of the rules of play. Any person wishing to violate those rules does so based on a motive. By examining the MO (modus operandi, or patterns of bahavior) of an individual one can build a psychological profile of the individual by which one can begin to understand their motives.
I've already shown how our subject's motivations are easy to determine using the givens, thus we can clearly determine that the individual in question is displaying classic sociopathic behavior.
You seem to be arguing out of a fear that a successful argument against this individual would translate into a successful argument against anyone who attacks other players. It does not. The MO, however, is strongly indicative of a character flaw.
Just one problem with that:
https://www.elitedangerous.com/en/gameplay/
"Or just hunt other Commanders"
You do not get to define "normal acceptable enjoyment". You are not so morally superior you get to decide how "acceptable" people have fun, especially when if this behaviour abhors your little heart, you were given two modes to escape to.
The game was developed with this being a potential part of gameplay. You don't have to agree with that, because the world will keep going around even if you rage so hard you go blue in face. Drop the superiority complex or trolling, whichever it is, and stop trying to define acceptable gaming habits.
If not, can you at least take it to the CoD forums instead? I mean, that's comparatively glorifying mass murder. This is just you being pretentious.
Last edited:
This is your second attempt to red herring the argument in this way.
At no point was this argument about fronteer's position on the action or the permissability of the action in the game. It was about your judgement of me in response to my judgement of another. I am defending my judgement.
Thus far you have failed to show that it was flawed in any way, merely stated your opinion that I have a superiority complex.
Speaking of that particular sophistry, it too is far too open ended. Given the broad range of humans in the world, I suspect that I am superior than some people in some ways and inferior to some people in other ways.
For example: If we were talking about my capacity to argue vs that of a gibbon, I would feel confident that I am superior since no known gibbon can argue. If, however, we were to compare my ability to survive in a jungle without any preparation, I would have to judge the gibbon as superior. How does one qualify the value of communication vs. survivability when determining net superiority? I don't have any idea since the contexts (jungle vs. a forum debate) are too divergent.
Last edited:
Did I hear a whisper of "tu quoque"?
Forgetting about trying to judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, the bottom line is simple...it's a damn game. Take the grumpy troll pants off and put on a mister blobby suit or something. If a game was created to allow an action, people will do that action. If it shows moral weakness in anyone, it shows moral weakness in the game developer that considered it, not the player (hint...it doesn't here, though. Just maximum lols/hour all round!)
In any case, done with your argument baiting. This is about as dead end as it gets. Take a chill pill, and go kill or be killed relentlessly. In game. Obviously
Last edited:
Flown all around in my vette no problem.
Shieldless Asp right now, no issues docking, jumping, or anything.
Awaiting the moment someone tries to ruin my experience by playing the game. Oh wait, I don't get mad over stuff like that. Because its a game.
Shieldless Asp right now, no issues docking, jumping, or anything.
Awaiting the moment someone tries to ruin my experience by playing the game. Oh wait, I don't get mad over stuff like that. Because its a game.
I think it is important to keep these types of debates civil and polite!
One of these fellas tried to get me on the way out of Obsidian Orbital yesterday, but as my witchspace countdown was in progress, his 50 plasma acc's did nothing before I shot off into the black.
Better luck next time, you basement dwelling virgin hahahaha.... *cough* err... where was I? Oh yes, civil and polite... [haha]
One of these fellas tried to get me on the way out of Obsidian Orbital yesterday, but as my witchspace countdown was in progress, his 50 plasma acc's did nothing before I shot off into the black.
Better luck next time, you basement dwelling virgin hahahaha.... *cough* err... where was I? Oh yes, civil and polite...
[haha]
Last edited:
One of these fellas tried to get me on the way out of Obsidian Orbital yesterday, but as my witchspace countdown was in progress, his 50 plasma acc's did nothing before I shot off into the black.
Better luck next time, you basement dwelling virgin hahahaha.... *cough* err... where was I? Oh yes, civil and polite...
Will donate good money to charity if FD design me a unique "insult cannon", which simply strikes an enemy and very politely insults them audibly.
Not sure why this came to mind, but the CG hilarity would be awesome.
Don't gotta tell me.
It's called the Mining Lance. It says "ha ha! You got shot with a Mining Lance!"
Deleted member 110222
D
I'm working that argument out, you're welcome to follow the thread if you like.
Ah, but we aren't talking about the morality of the in-game action: we are talking about the (my) judgement of the character of a person behaving in a specific pattern.
A sociopath is defined as:
Any game has boundaries (rules of play) around which normal acceptable enjoyment follows an acceptance of the rules of play. Any person wishing to violate those rules does so based on a motive. By examining the MO (modus operandi, or patterns of bahavior) of an individual one can build a psychological profile of the individual by which one can begin to understand their motives.
I've already shown how our subject's motivations are easy to determine using the givens, thus we can clearly determine that the individual in question is displaying classic sociopathic behavior.
You seem to be arguing out of a fear that a successful argument against this individual would translate into a successful argument against anyone who attacks other players. It does not. The MO, however, is strongly indicative of a character flaw.
Video games are not a medium to judge character from.
I've said it many times on this forum. You can judge someone's character when you witness their reaction to a woman getting mugged.
Requires that I base an argument on your hypocrisy.
I accept your concession.Forgetting about trying to judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, the bottom line is simple...it's a damn game. Take the grumpy troll pants off and put on a mister blobby suit or something. If a game was created to allow an action, people will do that action. If it shows moral weakness in anyone, it shows moral weakness in the game developer that considered it, not the player (hint...it doesn't here, though. Just maximum lols/hour all round!)
In any case, done with your argument baiting. This is about as dead end as it gets. Take a chill pill, and go kill or be killed relentlessly. In game. Obviously
To those who didn't see what he saw: that I was about to trap him in a contextual morality argument.
The basic premise is that universal morality is subjective, but in a closet Hib space (such as a game) there are clear definitions of universal morality derived from the sure knowlege of game creators existence and motive (to have a successful game, and thus popular and enjoyable).
As game mechanics expand to allow more play style and action, they must by the inclusive principle allow behaviors of a socially questionable or outright antisocial nature. Since the game creators cannot technologically inhibit open player interactions, player or GM management is required. The more populous the player base becomes, the more arduous the regulation of player interactions become until the entire process becomes prohibitive.
Thus in-game morality is divergent from morality as a whole, and judgement of character becomes a valid player topic and responsibility.
- - - Updated - - -
Are human actions a valid medium to judge character from?
May be too subtle
I've sour cream and chive crackers. Share?
Yes, it's one of those threads again. And people are playing amateur psychologist - again. Oh goody.
Where's Ziggy when you need him to save the day, eh?
Last edited:
Deleted member 110222
D
Requires that I base an argument on your hypocrisy.
I accept your concession.
To those who didn't see what he saw: that I was about to trap him in a contextual morality argument.
The basic premise is that universal morality is subjective, but in a closet Hib space (such as a game) there are clear definitions of universal morality derived from the sure knowlege of game creators existence and motive (to have a successful game, and thus popular and enjoyable).
As game mechanics expand to allow more play style and action, they must by the inclusive principle allow behaviors of a socially questionable or outright antisocial nature. Since the game creators cannot technologically inhibit open player interactions, player or GM management is required. The more populous the player base becomes, the more arduous the regulation of player interactions become until the entire process becomes prohibitive.
Thus in-game morality is divergent from morality as a whole, and judgement of character becomes a valid player topic and responsibility.
- - - Updated - - -
Are human actions a valid medium to judge character from?
If said actions are witnessed first-hand? Yes, they a valid medium.
Oh, and I'd stop calling people sociopaths.
Thing is, there is a sociopath in this thread.
Me. And yes, that's clinically diagnosed.
I've done stuff I regret, and that's the reason I am now forced to take medication to inhibit my behaviour.
Please don't insult me by saying you can call someone a sociopath based of in-game actions. That's at best, a childish over-reaction.
My condition is damn-well more serious then a bloody game.
- - - Updated - - -
Actually I haven't seen Ziggy once since the alien. Maybe he's their leader? Makes sense, actually.
I disagree that witnessing a person's actions first hand are a prerequisite for judging those actions. This would quite obviously not work in law and human eye-witness testomony is notoriously less reliable than other forms of evidence.
I didn't, check back. I did use the word as an outside boundary in an argument (think 'Thar be sociopathy' like 'Here be dragons' on a map), but I haven't made any attempt to diagnose anyone.
I'm going to ignore the rest of the emotional appeal since if you are indeed a sociopath I suspect your motives for using an appeal to emotion and if you aren't then the argument is specious to begin with.
- Status