Boycotting community events

[nexxo]

Grievers are people who's sole intent is to ruin other players' fun, our objective isn't to ruin other players' fun.

Well, in psychology there is a theory called correspondent inference: the most likely outcome of an action is interpreted to be its intention.

 

[Banana's_Are_Good_For_You]

Applying logic to that, it's also bad for banana trees, so keep dogs away from your loving mother-tree. You're the only one who can do it.

I can safely say that my ship is Canine free....but if I see one trying to defecate upon a Banana Tree, be sure in the fact I will flap them about a bit until they think otherwise.
Same goes for Humans as some are....weird.

 

[Roybe]

just to reiterate again, personally i have no issue at all with piracy.

In principle I have no issue at all with ganking (trying not to use the other G word as so subjective) if the game was working as advertised in the crime and punishment talks from the devs

however my issues are 2 fold.

1 with FD for not implementing the repercussions for our actions ingame which we were promised from the start

and 2 with the players who are abusing the mechanics in the game, such as deliberately tying up the landing pad indefinitiely as well as ramming inside the NFZ which is as obvious an exploit as it gets. (and some then have the bare faced cheek to moan about combat loggers DOH!)

1. Expecting immoral behavior and allowing it means that repercussions cannot be prohibitive to the activities. Creating a strong PVE response removes the idea that a PVP response is in order.

2. The ramming has been considered an exploit..but the justice system has been altered to make this a fined offense. This might need to be looked over and increased, in this case...I think it would be an over reaction...since the pain of destruction is so much higher at Hutton than elsewhere. This is a one off situation, and as such, should be treated as an outlier rather than a basis for justice. Staying on a landing pad indefinitely has not been identified as an exploit..and is not an exploit. Just switch modes and you can land any time you like.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Indeed. Perhaps your intent was not to ruin or set out to ruin other players' fun, but the end result was exactly the same

Well when two teams play football, that makes 11 losers, but would it be as much fun if everyone won? Most online games have situations in which the gratification of one player relies on the destruction of another, it is not an extraordinary proposition, and it is one FD and ED allow fully. Even if he was gratified by denying another player their goal, that is nothing wrong with that in the context of a game.

 

[GluttonyFang]

If anyone else finds this post as abhorrent as I do, I'd suggest you follow suit... Click on this individuals name, and click "Ignore User"... I find his sentiments in extremely poor taste and simply do not wish to see any further such comments.


But on a serious note, I find it fascinating how some people will try and rationalise their preferred behaviour - no matter how obviously anti-social it may be - by what ever means they can.

ie: We have a small number of individuals in the community taking advantage in loop holes in the game mechanics to cause unnecessary destruction and grief to other individuals trying to enjoy OPEN play. For example:-
- Repeatedly ramming other CMDRs to death at Hutton.
- Blocking landing pads at Hutton for hour(s) while goading other CMDRs.
- Destroying the HuttonOrbital.com live Twitch feed camera ship, therefore (needlessly) wasting that CMDRs CRs and time, and denying countless other CMDRs the enjoyment of enjoying the spectacle of the community goal unfolding.

Now these individuals may dress their antics up, but from what I've seen it's generally just a front to cause grief in what ever shape or form they can get away with. The more grief, seemingly the better.

As I've said elsewhere, the game needs to be tightened up to better self police itself. At the moment too many individuals can cause too much "grief" too easily and at too little cost/penalty to themselves. Can FD please look at some simple enhancement to introduce better mechanics in the game to improve its self policing.

I think that was slightly personal and overboard, your reaction that is.

Station ramming was addressed by the speed limit put in place and consequence of ramming do apply

Occupying landing pads is questionable, but with the rate people move in and out at the outpost, it is similar to pad blocking.

The destruction of the camera ship from what we are aware is that, at first we allowed the camera ship to stay as long as it remains neutral. However, the owner of said ship begin to bad mouth Code in a manner we found inappropriate, therefore we went after the camera ship.

You are free to express your discontent, but try to keep it on a less personal level. I think telling other people to ignore a poster just because you dislike the poster's view is a little extreme.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Well when two teams play football, that makes 11 losers, but would it be as much fun if everyone won? Most online games have situations in which the gratification of one player relies on the destruction of another, it is not an extraordinary proposition, and it is one FD and ED allow fully. Even if he was gratified by denying another player their goal, that is nothing wrong with that in the context of a game.

Notice I'm not actually disagreeing with their actions as such

Neither am I condoning them.

I'm just noticing inconsistencies with the logic.

 

[Yaffle]

Please stay on topic!

Going off-topic for a moment - you can compost dog faeces, but you won't be able to remove a lot of the nasties in it so use as a fertiliser even after composting is a Bad Idea. The same goes for human waste.

Even herbivore faeces can burn. From memory only rhubarb and corgettes (zucchini in the colonies) cope well with it. In general - let it rot first, or add it to your compost heap and rot it in there. It gets very hot, which is great for the compost heap. It counts as 'green' rather than 'brown' for getting the mix right.

Okay, and back to discussing then...

 

[GluttonyFang]

Well, in psychology there is a theory called correspondent inference: the most likely outcome of an action is interpreted to be its intention.

Interpreted intention isn't the same as the original intention.

 

[xslam]

Last time i checked this theme it was 20 pages, now it 37.

CODE you did it right!

-

Sorry if i missed a lot, but they not interested in how good you argue about your roleplay, they want you to gone. You're mere obstacle.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

1. Expecting immoral behavior and allowing it means that repercussions cannot be prohibitive to the activities. Creating a strong PVE response removes the idea that a PVP response is in order.

2. The ramming has been considered an exploit..but the justice system has been altered to make this a fined offense. This might need to be looked over and increased, in this case...I think it would be an over reaction...since the pain of destruction is so much higher at Hutton than elsewhere. This is a one off situation, and as such, should be treated as an outlier rather than a basis for justice. Staying on a landing pad indefinitely has not been identified as an exploit..and is not an exploit. Just switch modes and you can land any time you like.

Exactly, any change to the justice system based on Hutton alone would be reactionary and premature.

 

[Bieltan]

Grievers are people who's sole intent is to ruin other players' fun, our objective isn't to ruin other players' fun.

So what was your intent in flying an hour and a half out towards a remote outpost in order to prevent other players from participating in a Community Co-op activity?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yes. And your point?

The question didn't have a point dear. The point I made was made before that question and was quite obvious I think

They are being talked about, apparently they disrupted hundreds of commanders. The success of the goal is not what is important, but the effect it has on the game-world. Some players said they would now "boycott community goals", well the Code can take credit for that as well They get mentioned on Galnet, were some of the first players to get that honor. They are talked about ALL over the forums, and in local chat near their home-world, and in other groups I am a part of (and on Reddit). I also admire their attempt t a blockade, given that players can just go to solo and finish the goal anyway. Also I find it ironic that you ask me "Is notoriety really that important to people" when you have an Avatar of David Bowie AKA Ziggy Stardust. Sometimes people do it for the fame They exist in your consciousness now, and when you play in Open, you are aware of them. When there is a CG, you KNOW they are waiting for you. Granted, this only has full appeal to those of us who stay in Open regardless...

Wow, so much to unpack here. Starting with the personal stuff.

Why is it ironic that I have a Ziggy Stardust avatar, which is an alter ego from an artist I admire and thus the reason I adopted it as my own alter ego, and I am wondering why people value notoriety? That one need a bit of explaining.

I'm glad you at least can see that the stated objectives are indeed a flimsy smokescreen. It's funny how even CODE admirers see through that.

Players also went into Solo because of the actions of CODE. They can take credit for that as well. Next CG players will have wisened up and a bigger portion will be in solo. I'm sure none of the CODE members or their fanboys will complain about CGs being dominated by solo players, since they contributed to that issue.

And being affiliated with the Fuel Rats, we've met CODE. Individually they're good guys. Always had pleasant dealings with Mr. Fang. But as always, when tied to an organisation it all goes south fast. All criticism I have towards them I have towards them as a group, not as individuals. Hell, I could even respect their honesty if they'd said: we're just causing trouble, because we like to.

I think you're romanticizing when you say "They exist in your consciousness now, and when you play in Open, you are aware of them". This isn't the first CG they tried to disrupt you know. Probably won't be the last. They are talked about in this thread, because they're the subject, and they are mentioned elsewhere because they're part of the background. Sometimes when they make a little noise the spotlight is on them, and in a couple of days, it will be on something else.

Lastly, when CODE are in their role as pirates I love having them around.

Bottomline, short term notoriety it is. I appreciate you being candid about that.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Oh good God, almost died laughing there!
.
Your actions - which is killing innocent traders who don't even make any profits by doing this run - is not "statement". They don't violate any law, they do not carry anything illegal, they're not killing anyone. By calling this "making a statement" and publishing silly manifestos, you just confirm yourself and your group as terrorists.
That's right - you're not a pirates, you're a bloody terrorists who are thinking that they make statements and doing the right thing. In reality all what you do is enjoy killing those who cannot fight back.
.
Are there any counter-terrorism player groups, who are dedicated to putting down kids like this furry Osama-wannabe? Because we seriously in need of one.

I will ignore the personal attack.

We aren't killing indiscriminately and do actively warn people of our actions.

Also, I did not publish the reddit announcement.

 

[Roybe]

Roy - you're like broken record pushing that codswallop now man!

(for observers this is an ongoing theme between Roy, me and others... offence not intended but clearly he is wrong!)

You should see all the people that agree with me, though! Codswallop or not, it's the start of a movement! Any one can join and would change the nature of this game to one of peaceful coexistence and any talk of griefing would stop! Think about that! An empty forum with no complaints!

 

[GluttonyFang]

So what was your intent in flying an hour and a half out towards a remote outpost in order to prevent other players from participating in a Community Co-op activity?

You may find the announcement on reddit.

 

[nexxo]

You didn't seem to read, our objective is to stop the CG, stopping players is the method. If our objective is to ruin other players' fun, then we would be grievers, but it isn't.

I didn't mean to kill him, officer!

We don't believe that we are noble warriors, but we do fight for a just cause. People wouldn't fight for something that isn't just to their minds, it isn't the justice you would like to define it, though.

Dude, it's a just a game. It's just a bit of fun. You're not supposed to turn a bit of rough and tumble into a full-on punch-up.

You may interpret our actions however you like, but we are standing by the principle that we are a piracy group, not a grieving group.

A man is defined by his actions. --Lao Tse / Jean Paul Sartre

 

[Roberto]

The minority? Well maybe, I would be surprised if so few of us were aware of the humor and jokes about Hutton.

Sure, it's "silly", but that doesn't mean it isn't/hasn't been fun. What's wrong with a bit of silliness?

 

[nexxo]

Interpreted intention isn't the same as the original intention.

Doesn't matter to the guy at the receiving end.

Look, just own it like a man. You like piracy? No problem, adds colour to the game. You like to stake out a profitable trade route? Makes perfect sense, adds to the challenge. You turn it into some sort of political statement? Get out of my game.

 

[GluttonyFang]

No you can't, and apparently you can't see the similarities between a press complaints/investigative body, funded by the press, investigating the press or MP's investigating themselves and your investigation. If you cannot see why there would be doubt and suspicion over CODE being investigated by CODE and the glaringly obvious conflict of interests that involves then, frankly, I do not know what to say.

I would put in a formal request for FD support to give us server data on the individual we found that make the statement, but I suppose you will just dismiss that by saying we'll use some random Cmdr's name and cover things up.

Do you see a trend here?

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't matter to the guy at the receiving end.

Then the guy on the receiving end is being inconsiderate. We consider the possible distress we might cause and warn people for their chance to escape.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't mean to kill him, officer!


Dude, it's a just a game. It's just a bit of fun. You're not supposed to turn a bit of rough and tumble into a full-on punch-up.


A man is defined by his actions. --Lao Tse / Jean Paul Sartre

I don't think I need to reply to any of these, so I suppose thank you for your input.

 

[Theodrid]

I would put in a formal request for FD support to give us server data on the individual we found that make the statement, but I suppose you will just dismiss that by saying we'll use some random Cmdr's name and cover things up.

Do you see a trend here?

- - - Updated - - -



Then the guy on the receiving end is being inconsiderate. We consider the possible distress we might cause and warn people for their chance to escape.

Yes, yes I do, you are making assumptions about what I would or would not dismiss, and we both know what assumptions make.