Boycotting community events

[Surly_Badger]

If you are so keen on seeing people being "moral" perhaps you should start on the line of tolerance instead of assertion of standardized morality.

Tolerance is overrated.

The moral arguments I've been making are constructive; we can assess the right/wrong of something based on how it impacts other people's liberties, and whether or not they consent. Your attempting to demonize my arguments as "standardized morality" is ridiculous - for one thing, if I were preaching a standardized morality I'd just be making appeals to authorities (as you've been doing) instead of trying to offer guidelines.

Because I do my own moral assessments (based on the kind of reasoning I've been exposing in this thread) I am quite comfortable rejecting your plea for tolerance. It is, in fact, my ability to look at someone's actions and decide that I think what they do is repugnant or positive, that allows me to make any judgements at all. I don't say that my judgements hold universally (I defy you to quote me anyplace where I've said anything of the sort) but - of course - I judge. Judging other's beliefs is what moral agents must do in order to be anything more than a robot.

So don't expect tolerance for me. I've said before; I think your beliefs are contemptible; that's why I am contemptuous. If you want me to be tolerant, be tolerable.

I think we've probably both made our arguments as thoroughly as we need to, so I'm going to start to back out of further pointless blow-by-blow unless there are new wrinkles that excite interest.

 

[torc]

What about creating an Hutton Patrol wings and delete those pirates from the face of the universe?

 

[Jack Schitt]

This thread is already degenerating into an insult-fest, and while it hasn't exactly embraced Godwin's Law it's certainly given it a couple of good fondles. I can't see it lasting much longer.

So, before it gets nuked into oblivion I give you what I like to think of as the official song of Elite: Dangerous' Open Play mode. I suggest anyone heading to Hutton in Open puts this on permanent loop as a reminder.

Definitely NSFW.

Spoiler

[video=youtube;BNOUDhklZKQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNOUDhklZKQ[/video]

 

[GluttonyFang]

I read it. I didn't see anything in there that was a positive game-play benefit of interfering with the CG. That I didn't see that in there isn't my problem, it's yours.

Then maybe acknowledge that you read it but merely disagree with it, which you are completely entitled to.

They're right. I am being distainful of your opinions. That's exactly the point. I think your opinions are repugnant and I have spent the last couple postings explaining why.

The fact that they are "opinion" also doesn't shelter them from critique*

You are free to critique, but when you don't take into consideration the perspective of the material you are critiquing, you're not providing criticism, but plain, voluntary, ignorant bashing.

NPCs and bugs do not make moral choices. If they did, that would make for a really unusual discussion indeed.

The issue is that the developers of the AI made it possible for these NPCs to act "immorally," thus you should be emailing them about their design.

I've been doing nothing but explaining why the actions of the pirates absolutely are non-equivalent to the actions of the traders. You just don't want to hear it because you don't want to accept my reasoning. That's fine. Probably you realize that on these kinds of forums, the battle isn't to convince the person you're arguing with -- the battle is to air the views and present the arguments and the victory is in the people who silently read, and think about what they've read. So the question for you is whether you've been doing a good job of justifying the pirates, or whether I've been doing a good job of explaining why they were big meanies. I'd say "you be the judge" but - you won't.

Well then, I see that the difference between a demagogue and a vocational debater now.

I have been doing nothing but explaining why your opinions are contemptible, and you accuse me of holding you in contempt? Please, tell me something I don't already know!?

The problem is your attitude toward other people's opinions, if you dismiss them on the spot without thorough contemplation and consideration of your opposition's argument, you're performing a monologue, not engaged in a conversation.

I already told you I've been diagnosed with BPD before. I scored some really crazy stuff on the MMPI back in 1984 when I was still an undergrad in the psych department at Johns Hopkins. Tell me some things about myself that I don't know.

So this becomes your excuse...?

(* Pro tip: don't go down that path because if you say opinion is automatically sheltered from critique then you invite everyone's negative opinion on you and shelter them from critique)

You don't seem to understand the concept of tolerance, and that is worrying, but considering your generation, it is likely that you are less tolerant than the youth of the contemporary era. So I suppose I can't blame you.

I want critique, but I don't think a monologue who doesn't respond to my arguments whatsoever like a speaker sitting in a lecture hall will do any good for the conversation.

 

[Khelder]

I find this thread more amusing than the game right now...
Wait... my popcorns are ready...

Yes! These threads have definitely been missing popcorn.

 

[Surly_Badger]

First in your example should be two adults

I selected an asymmetric power relationship, in order to wall out the scenario in which the child ninja-kills the adult.

In the Hutton Orbital scenario, we have armed warships attacking cargo haulers; an asymmetric power relationship indeed.

One of the other points that this thought experiment seeks to expose is the idea that power differences can be consensual. If two people consent to a cage-match, and the understanding is that it's a fight, they are presumably accepting the implicit idea that it may turn out to be unequal (as a result of training, or skill, or whatever) The reason that some people value such encounters is because they are battles of skill and training and natural talent - and we value a good clean fair fight. This is another reason I am contemptuous of the pirates' blockade: it is hardly the act of a great warrior for armed warships to "blockade" merchant haulers. It's the act of a coward, really - on about the same level as an adult kicking down a kid's sand castle.

If the pirates were trying to do some interesting emergent game-play for a blockade scenario, perhaps they'd fight a balanced and interesting pitched battle against a warfleet defending the merchies. If ED didn't have such cruddy instancing mechanics and built in limits to ships in instance, I could see some really interesting convoy defense engagements, etc. A fair fight is hardly glorious; glory is being outnumbered and outgunned and winning anyway. Instead we get pirates gunning down defenseless cargo-ships. Yes, I am contemptuous; who wouldn't be?

The idea that anyone at all would defend such cowardice really boggles my mind. Gaming encourages some people to let really nasty bits of their dark ego come out and trot around in the bright lights, doesn't it?

 

[Ian Phillips]

Hello moderator, there was a previous post about the issue and locked due to hostility, thus I'm trying to prevent people from heading down the same path.

That isn't going too well, judging by most of the posts in this thread.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Tolerance is overrated.

Well, sorry, the basic concept of mutual respect and tolerance is that the intolerance of intolerance is the basic principle of tolerance.

You interpret writers to be authority when they are clearly mere influential people that produce intellectually inspiring work. Reading them as they are without any reflection upon them is an insult to the writers.

I will show you what will happen when I utilize the intolerance you have been indulging and you will see how productive this conversation becomes:

Tolerance [Intolerance]

You're wrong.

[Tolerance] Intolerance

Don't you see? If we just fall prey to our nature of rejecting anything foreign and opposing, we won't get anywhere but continuous denial of one another's perspective simply out of the will to reject an idea.

I suppose I also grow tired of the issue.

We can clearly see where we fundamentally splinter as individuals, you reject tolerance where I favor it. I'm not claiming there is any absolute or even relative correctness or wrongness about either path, since that would be intolerant of me. However, if I am to uphold the principle of tolerance, I cannot tolerate your intolerance. Thus I will hold in neutral until further provocation, otherwise, I rest.

 

[Scudmungus]

Mi nat muggin! Mi blockadin dis allyway!

Mi nat robbin! Mi blockadin yuh home!

Mi nat griefin! Mi blockade dis playgroun!

Mi nat hidin mi intent behin words! Mi defendin mi right to RP!



Blockade bout stoppin tings movin in/out. Blockade ALSO fah strategic reason. Countries stoppin medical supplies. Fuel. Resources. Weaken enemy.Seemin Hutton ting gat first bit. Nat gettin second. Must be supa smart strategic masta plan. Dem mugs! Mi nat dat smart. HA!

Maybi dem tinkin dis som 'mind warfare'.

Aal gud - if dem wantin folks to fight harda. Frantic. Nah? Best read som. Lotta research on dis kinda ting. Yuh really wantin to mess minds up? Gat to do it behin smoke an pin on som oder fool. Truth. Else wi just makin martyrs an galvanizin folks to fight betta - harda - longa.

Wait. Tan now. Mi tinkin.... CG success.... criss Rare Trade ting gettin made? Truth? Smart pirate nat wantin criss Rare Trade ting? Nat wantin gud huntin groun? Ting gonna be worth bold credits! HA!

 

[GluttonyFang]

That isn't going too well, judging by most of the posts in this thread.

No, but I think it is dying down, though.

 

[Miklos Atreides]

Why aren't the cargo ships flying with escorts? It's pretty low targeting freighters hauling scrap, but it's still part of the game. Sounds like the freighter captains need to be a bit more organised, or fly in solo.

For escorts seems to be an issue of demand and offer. I newer saw an offer of escorts anywhere. Maybe it due to not being in the hotspot, I know. But nothing. since Wings exist. Maybe the mechanic to get an escort is bad. Because I can't order it at the station where I trade. I am willing to pay 10000 Cr for a 150000 Profit if I can hire the escort. And NPC escorts are not available where it is lacking of players.

Regards,
Miklos

 

[InMemoriamSirocco]

The way I see it, it is everyone's own fault for running into a blockade if they don't use solo mode.

The game has all the mechanics to easily circumvent any blockading attempt. Your own mistake not to use them. If someone wants to grief you, just don't let them. The game allows you to prevent anybody from ruining your game experience.

The moment I get a message in SC about a starport being blocked by other CMDRs, I go back to main menu and switch to solo. Problem solved. I adapted to the new situation. I responded to the threat by avoiding it. And I might smile smugly as I enter said starport unscathed and unnoticed by any blockading CMDRs.

Frankly, I can all but chuckle about player attempts to set up a blockade around any given location on the game. It is ridiculous in my eyes. Any sensible CG trader would just approach in solo mode. Minimize the risk, maximize the profit.

Because that's what traders do!

 

[babelfisch]

For escorts seems to be an issue of demand and offer. I newer saw an offer of escorts anywhere. Maybe it due to not being in the hotspot, I know. But nothing. since Wings exist. Maybe the mechanic to get an escort is bad. Because I can't order it at the station where I trade. I am willing to pay 10000 Cr for a 150000 Profit if I can hire the escort. And NPC escorts are not available where it is lacking of players.

Regards,
Miklos

The CODE are doing if for free. They don't get any credits for their blockade. If you can't find somebody to protect you it's the bounty hunters who play the game wrong, not them.

 

[Kazacy]

I selected an asymmetric power relationship, in order to wall out the scenario in which the child ninja-kills the adult.

In the Hutton Orbital scenario, we have armed warships attacking cargo haulers; an asymmetric power relationship indeed.

One of the other points that this thought experiment seeks to expose is the idea that power differences can be consensual. If two people consent to a cage-match, and the understanding is that it's a fight, they are presumably accepting the implicit idea that it may turn out to be unequal (as a result of training, or skill, or whatever) The reason that some people value such encounters is because they are battles of skill and training and natural talent - and we value a good clean fair fight. This is another reason I am contemptuous of the pirates' blockade: it is hardly the act of a great warrior for armed warships to "blockade" merchant haulers. It's the act of a coward, really - on about the same level as an adult kicking down a kid's sand castle.

If the pirates were trying to do some interesting emergent game-play for a blockade scenario, perhaps they'd fight a balanced and interesting pitched battle against a warfleet defending the merchies. If ED didn't have such cruddy instancing mechanics and built in limits to ships in instance, I could see some really interesting convoy defense engagements, etc. A fair fight is hardly glorious; glory is being outnumbered and outgunned and winning anyway. Instead we get pirates gunning down defenseless cargo-ships. Yes, I am contemptuous; who wouldn't be?

The idea that anyone at all would defend such cowardice really boggles my mind. Gaming encourages some people to let really nasty bits of their dark ego come out and trot around in the bright lights, doesn't it?

The asymmetric power relationship is set not only by pirates but also by the traders. As a trader you can choose to spend money on security or to spend money in more cargo. Spending on security in my opinion means to fly a combat ship with some cargo. Also is a multiplayer game, call your friends and don't fly alone. Choosing greed over security, and log in open, should have consequences, and if bad things happen, people came on forums and complain, insult, call for nerfs etc etc.
Also personally i never choose a "fair fight", every time i try to have some upper hand, an ace in the sleeve. For example these days i use a clipper to ram pythons, anacondas etc big ships, then i use torpedoes if their shields are dropped. I can't speak for everyone but i think every commander here when it's come to pvp has some "evil" plan how to win the battles, even the "fair ones".
In short, in my opinion, if you are fight in a fair fight, you are doing something very wrong. You can call it cowardice, it's your opinion, i prefer to call it smart fight.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I have to ask... do you have a RP reason for the blockade though? Do you somehow object to Hutton Orbital selling mugs? Do CODE have some sort of downer on humourous mugs?

Or, as I suspect, the blockade only exists because you know players are heading there, so you just want to stop them because you want your PvP kicks?

Not that i mind too much as long as those involved are being fair about it, like you said, giving warnings, giving people a chance. If its just insta-gank, then I can't approve. Those travelling to Hutton should be aware of the risks and not flying something that can be taken apart in seconds.

Of course, one more issue, those blockading effectively being able to ignore station security and can still keep killing people near to the station. FD really could do with doing something make being near the station safe. Getting to the station safely at least should be a kind of reward, not a dead end where you are stuck between a killer and no spare docking pads.

Hi, sorry for the late reply, I'm literally sitting in front of the computer for 4-5 straight hours trying to respond to all the outcries about Code. I thought coordinating Archon Delaine was busy work, I was wrong.

Please read this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...fficial_code_response_regarding_the_blockade/

I am more than happy to answer any more additional questions.

 

[Krait_79]

Oh not yet another whiny thread because someone got killed. This game just represents real life in that some play by rules other's don't.

You can't expect the galaxy to be some sanatised hug fest where nothing dangerous or unfair ever happens. If you struggle with the unfairness of Elite then i worry for you out there in the real world!

 

[InMemoriamSirocco]

Please read this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...fficial_code_response_regarding_the_blockade/

I am more than happy to answer any more additional questions.

EDIT: I read this post and agree with the majority of comments underneath it criticizing your policy.

 

[GluttonyFang]

EDIT: I read this post and agree with the majority of comments underneath it criticizing your policy.

Got it, thank you for the input.

 

[Lupis]

Oh not yet another whiny thread because someone got killed. This game just represents real life in that some play by rules other's don't.

You can't expect the galaxy to be some sanatised hug fest where nothing dangerous or unfair ever happens. If you struggle with the unfairness of Elite then i worry for you out there in the real world!

Yeah it's totaly unreasonable for anyone to do a CG which has no profit for anyone till it's over and not get ganked by people giving a petty excuse to kill other players.

 

[Mephane]

You see, you made a categorical mistake.

"In your interpretation I made a conscious decision to ruin somebody else's fun."

I don't intend to cause grief to other people, I don't find it enjoyable.

By playing strawman​ what does that make you?

Okay, let's widen the scope a bit. And this is not specifically about you, or whatever group or cause you may or may not represent, your post merely brought me to the idea:

A griefer is a sadist, enjoying the pain and frustration of another person. But what is the word to describe someone who doesn't intentionally ruin someone else's day, but doesn't care about it, either, and ruthlessly follows along their plans or agenda? Psychopath.