Going against your own word - "infiltrators" please note

[Saxon Kili]

It doesn't need to be a binary issue.

Someone who lies to gain an artificial advantage in a video game isn't necessarily a habitual liar, but they are happy to lie whenever it suits them or they wouldn't have done it in the first place.

Other people wouldn't do it at all.

That's the difference.

I agree, it does not to be a binary issue. Lots of life is shades of gray.

In different settings a person will do and say different things. A decent person's honesty is often proportional to the weight of a possible outcome. If I find a dollar bill laying on the ground, I'm going to put it in my pocket. Was it mine? No. But it is now. If I find someone's wallet , I'll leave everything in it and try to find the owner. Two different decisions based on relative importance. In neither case was the property really mine. Though, it's debatable.

 

[Devari]

No matter how hard you try, you can't "discredit" the facts that I keep reiterating

They are not "facts". The problem with your "argument" is that you have an attribution bias where you are incorrectly attributing the observation that someone "does not follow PG rules" to that individual being an inherently "untrustworthy person". Those two are not equivalent. You cannot infer someone's inherent tendencies towards trustworthiness on that basis alone without far more detailed and reliable information on their conduct and behavior in many other contexts.

not because I'm upset, or emotional in any way

Your emotions are exactly why you are biased. You are unable to recognize your own attribution bias because you are, in fact, making an emotional argument which you are incorrectly stating as "fact". You are clearly quite upset that those players are "not following the rules" and are trying to infer that they are therefore inherently "untrustworthy" or "dishonest".

it is simply because people like yourself are trying to be deliberately obtuse. Transparently so.

Noting that your argument is not valid is not being "obtuse". It is pointing out that your "argument" and conclusions are not valid.

Just to keep clarifying that no interpretation is possible in the circumstances I describe because what I'm posting about happens to be an absolute truth.

No, it's not. You are inferring a broader statement on someone's inherent trustworthiness on whether they follow rules in a specific set of online interactions in a specific online game. You are making broad, sweeping statements about those players based on very limited information. That is not an "absolute truth". That is an unsupported speculation based on very limited behavioral observations.

It appears that some just don't want to recognise the truth about this, and keep trying to "explain" or "interpret". Sorry, but not possible. Absolute truths aren't negotiable.

Simply stating something in an "absolute truth" does not make it so. You are either trolling, or just unable to consider your own biases, but nothing that you've stated qualifies as an "absolute truth".

 

[[VR] DDM_Reaper20]

They are not "facts". The problem with your "argument" is that you have an attribution bias where you are incorrectly attributing the observation that someone "does not follow PG rules" to that individual being an inherently "untrustworthy person". Those two are not equivalent. You cannot infer someone's inherent tendencies towards trustworthiness on that basis alone without far more detailed and reliable information on their conduct and behavior in many other contexts.



Your emotions are exactly why you are biased. You are unable to recognize your own attribution bias because you are, in fact, making an emotional argument which you are incorrectly stating as "fact". You are clearly quite upset that those players are "not following the rules" and are trying to infer that they are therefore inherently "untrustworthy" or "dishonest".



Noting that your argument is not valid is not being "obtuse". It is pointing out that your "argument" and conclusions are not valid.



No, it's not. You are inferring a broader statement on someone's inherent trustworthiness on whether they follow rules in a specific set of online interactions in a specific online game. You are making broad, sweeping statements about those players based on very limited information. That is not an "absolute truth". That is an unsupported speculation based on very limited behavioral observations.



Simply stating something in an "absolute truth" does not make it so. You are either trolling, or just unable to consider your own biases, but nothing that you've stated qualifies as an "absolute truth".

I wouldn't go so far as to call a person untrustworthy who violates such simple rules. I have yet to meet a person who has never, ever, lied, be it to spare somebody's feelings, or to obtain an advantage (often a minor, inconsequential one, of course, such as another cookie . . . small fry like that).

However, if somebody wishes to shoot other players, joining either Open or a dedicated PvP group would be the way to go. Joining a PvE group, therefore, where people are unlikely to be geared (and prepared for) PvP I would classify as being too lazy to go up against players prepared for (and interested in) PvP.

I generally try to avoid taking the moral high ground as far as computer games are concerned. Those are about fun. However, people should (generally speaking) try not to be egotists, and make sure everybody has some fun. Stomping other players just go get a hoot out of it may be hilarious to some, but in crass cases, such as total power imbalance, the joke's on the perpetrator.

 

[Stigbob]

Thats not true either. People consider the seriousness of their actions, and to many computer games are as trivial a context as it gets. You may disagree, but that is a different discussion.

No that's exactly the point I'm making, some people will tell lies routinely to gain such a trivial advantage. Some people wouldn't but would lie under more extreme or real circumstances. Different points in the grey area between truth and lies cheating/not cheating.

People in the first category are more likely to do things like combat logging, people in the second may not want to play video games with people like that.

 

[Stigbob]

I agree, it does not to be a binary issue. Lots of life is shades of gray.

In different settings a person will do and say different things. A decent person's honesty is often proportional to the weight of a possible outcome. If I find a dollar bill laying on the ground, I'm going to put it in my pocket. Was it mine? No. But it is now. If I find someone's wallet , I'll leave everything in it and try to find the owner. Two different decisions based on relative importance. In neither case was the property really mine. Though, it's debatable.

True, even the most honest person will tell lies sometimes, the Vatican archives are full of signed confessions of witchcraft we all know none of them can ever have been real.

 

[Screemonster]

This thread is very enlightening.
Loads of crap from the very same people who used to whine about how logging was immoral, and rule breaking, and betraying some sacred oath.
Time to be proactive and start using the block function, since lots of dense kids doesn't seem to get the "I don't wanna play with you" message in their skulls.

Bingo. If you're going to whine about combat logging like it's some sort of sacred covenant between players that you consent to PVP when you play in open and you're BREAKING THE RUUUUUULLLEEEESSSS by logging out, then don't turn around and try to justify lying to get into an explicitly PvE-only group. And certainly don't try to act like you have some moral high-ground when they task-kill on you in the PG.

But then again these are the people that use terms like "carebear" to make it everyone else's fault that they're not wanted.

 

[Bigmaec]

Bingo. If you're going to whine about combat logging like it's some sort of sacred covenant between players that you consent to PVP when you play in open and you're BREAKING THE RUUUUUULLLEEEESSSS by logging out, then don't turn around and try to justify lying to get into an explicitly PvE-only group. And certainly don't try to act like you have some moral high-ground when they task-kill on you in the PG.

But then again these are the people that use terms like "carebear" to make it everyone else's fault that they're not wanted.

Hypocrisy at it's finest, especially from those who call menu logging cheating but find infiltrating PG perfectly legit gameplay

 

[bootsam]

To be fair, I'm a bit loose with the road traffic speed limits when out on my bike. However, asides from that I'm a law abiding citizen. It's just an open road is a temptation I find irresistable at times.

(Note: I dont take the mickey though, Im aware of my own mortality and skill limitations. Im not a nutter. Right time, right place and all that. Ive been on 2 wheels for over 30yrs)

Although, when in my car I am 'driving miss daisy' and just go with the flow and in no particular hurry. So, I do break laws. Does that make me untrustworthy? I dont think so. I would not, for instance, knowingly break the law or adopt behaviour just for the sake of it (bikes aside). On the whole, I am very trustworthy. I keep my word.

I dont think the untrustworthy label fits, however thats not to say it wasnt a rotten thing to do. So is my speeding to be fair, but that only affects me. Not others. (unless it goes wrong and I kill myself)

 

[Der Zeitgeist]

But then again these are the people that use terms like "carebear" to make it everyone else's fault that they're not wanted.

As I wrote in the other thread, this whole ganker / griefer issue is mostly forum drama and so far a non-issue in the actual expedition.

I thought about how to react if any of the sheep turn out as wolves in the PG, but after reading from the PVP-types here on the forum (remarkably insecure rambling mostly) and especially watching a few ganker streams on Twitch and YouTube (bunch of immature giggling kids acting like they're pulling wings of flies) I won't really bother with those people's gameplay experience any longer.

What happens in open, happens, and if anyone goes nuts in the PG, I have a task manager.

 

[Stigbob]

To be fair, I'm a bit loose with the road traffic speed limits when out on my bike. However, asides from that I'm a law abiding citizen. It's just an open road is a temptation I find irresistable at times.

(Note: I dont take the mickey though, Im aware of my own mortality and skill limitations. Im not a nutter. Right time, right place and all that. Ive been on 2 wheels for over 30yrs)

Although, when in my car I am 'driving miss daisy' and just go with the flow and in no particular hurry. So, I do break laws. Does that make me untrustworthy? I dont think so. I would not, for instance, knowingly break the law or adopt behaviour just for the sake of it (bikes aside). On the whole, I am very trustworthy. I keep my word.

I dont think the untrustworthy label fits, however thats not to say it wasnt a rotten thing to do. So is my speeding to be fair, but that only affects me. Not others. (unless it goes wrong and I kill myself)

Its arguably a mistake to apply it beyond the game, however as we all only interact in the game it doesn't need to. Untrustworthy in game is all the information we need to judge another's trustworthiness in the only way that will ever count.

 

[verminstar]

All this talk about how trustworthy a person is in real life based on their actions in a game...tis funny cos I really cant relate to this. Im a total carebear in the game but in real life? Not so much. So my online persona is not a reflection on my character, its a contradiction.

In real life I dont see lying as a bad thing or a good thing, I see it as a necessary thing. Being honest would make life much less comfortable, hell they might even expect me to work fer a living...hell with that thats no fun why have cotton when ye can have silk?

In saying that, I have been an ¨infiltrator¨ in other games like eve where we used dummy accounts to get inside corps and alliances with the sole intention of destroying them from the inside by whatever means necessary. One guy had a real life nervous breakdown because of it and threw himself of a bridge back in the day. Thing is, we didnt do it outta spite, it was a paid contract...a job which was just a part of the game and we got well paid by a rival alliance to do what we did.

ED has no such mechanisms or the ability to have that much player interaction in the first place...this isnt about destroying rival corps, just some kids having fun at everyone elses expense and behaving badly. The other thing ED appears to lack is backbone...there are rules in place which they seem hesitant to enforce ergo the impression is that its permitted and not actually breaking the rules at all. Whatever happened to shadow banning? Has there been any cases where anyone was shadow banned? Less than a dozen in 4/5 years should tell ye all ye need to know about FD commitment to solving the issue.

Just play in solo and resign yerself to the fact that elite is the best single player multiplayer space game there is...upside being there is no problem worth arguing about at all...problem solved what was the question again? All this drama and what does it achieve? Passes the time I suppose ^

 

[Jukelo]

So did you read the Mobius Policy e.g.
The group's goal is to provide players with an environment to play Elite: Dangerous in a full multiplayer world without having the experience spoiled by non-consensual PvP, ganking, domination, abuse or anti-social behaviour.

To achieve this, all members agree to abide to the rules listed below while playing online in the "Mobius" private group. Of course, the rules apply only to sessions inside the group

And continue to join the group as defined by their 'rules' in order to play with the friends in that group, or decide that as their policy isn't one laid down by the game developers it doesn't matter anyway?

Just curious as you haven't actually stated that your intention was to 'break' their rules, just that FDev haven't written such in stone (and that there is so much 'distrust' flying around that even a harmless comment could be misinterpreted!)

I didn't join Mobius specifically looking to break the group's rules, and I haven't been there in years, but I wouldn't have a problem doing it if the circumstances called for it, as these rules are indeed just arbitrary and made up by the players and are only enforceable in that it is the group owner's right to kick you out if you break them.

Mind you I would see things differently if, before you were allowed to join a private group, the game would force you, via an in-game popup or some such, to read and acknowledge that private group's rules. It would have to keep a copy of the rules as they existed at the time you joined (to be able to handle disputes), and those rules would need to be curated by Frontier to avoid the most blatant cases that could get them in trouble for endorsing them ("no Jews allowed", "send pics first", "here's my paypal" etc )... Then and only then you could justify giving group owner more authority over what happens to rule breakers beyond their current power to kick them.

What are you going on about?

When did I ever mention "punishment" or appealling to frontier. You're making things up now. Build me a straw man and then knock it down...

You explicitely said, killing somebody in a no-pvp group is against the rules of the game. Now in my world, breaking the rules calls for punishment, but regardless it is nonsensical to think Frontier is going to endorse your group's arbitrary rules with no oversight.

As a member of Mobius - yes, you have given your agreement to no PvP. That's the condition you agree to be bound by. Feel free to look it up yourself.

I haven't. Can you prove I have? Please don't quote the Elitepve.com website, since I can all too easily claim I have never visited that website or accepted the rules laid out there before joining the group.

Ignorance is no excuse.

Ignorance is no excuse only works when you have the power to make your position the default one which others can't claim to ignore. A private group's owner can do that through the power they have to exclude anybody from their group, which I certainly don't dispute.

 

[Stigbob]

I haven't. Can you prove I have? Please don't quote the Elitepve.com website, since I can all too easily claim I have never visited that website or accepted the rules laid out there before joining the group.

I think you have to ask for membership via that website to get in now, so people do agree beforehand. Not that it matters claiming you didn't know wouldn't effect anything as they don't need any type of agreement from you to kick you out.

 

[Stinja]

The PG agreement is between the *players*, not their "characters", and reneging on your agreement is not an acceptable act for the person to perform.

So if I go into Open and shoot, murderhobo, club--newbies that's fine? It's my CMDR character i'm roleplaying that is the sociopath / psychopath.
If I go into a Private Group (with PvE rules) and murderhobo, it's me the human that's the sociopath etc, because *I* am ignoring the inherent out-of-game agreement?

Certainly I can see the view point where that's coming from, given there is an implied lack of respect and empathy for the out-of-game rules and other players, although many real life rules are ignored and doesn't mean that person is now arbitrarily evil - just selfish and slightly sociopathic.

 

[Stigbob]

So if I go into Open and shoot, murderhobo, club--newbies that's fine? It's my CMDR character i'm roleplaying that is the sociopath / psychopath.
If I go into a Private Group (with PvE rules) and murderhobo, it's me the human that's the sociopath etc, because *I* am ignoring the inherent out-of-game agreement?

Certainly I can see the view point where that's coming from, given there is an implied lack of respect and empathy for the out-of-game rules and other players, although many real life rules are ignored and doesn't mean that person is now arbitrarily evil - just selfish and slightly sociopathic.

It wouldn't make you inherently evil, but it would make you bit of a Richard.

 

[Rat Catcher]

So if I go into Open and shoot, murderhobo, club--newbies that's fine? It's my CMDR character i'm roleplaying that is the sociopath / psychopath.
If I go into a Private Group (with PvE rules) and murderhobo, it's me the human that's the sociopath etc, because *I* am ignoring the inherent out-of-game agreement?

Certainly I can see the view point where that's coming from, given there is an implied lack of respect and empathy for the out-of-game rules and other players, although many real life rules are ignored and doesn't mean that person is now arbitrarily evil - just selfish and slightly sociopathic.

The current game 'rules' allow anyone to 'interact' with anyone else in a way that is 'entertaining' to them. Be it setting out on an exploration trip or going to a 'starter' system in a flying super-tank to blow up little sidies as they make their first foray - all 'in the rules' and permitted.

Joining a group with the sole intention to 'interact' negatively with the other members is still not against the game rules published by the developers, but certainly demonstrates a disregard for the purpose of the group. But I guess whatever makes you feel good is all that matters

 

[Stigbob]

This whole dilemma should be viewed as a positive thing. The best part of Mobius isn't the rules to get in, its the list of people who are not allowed in anymore due to their behavior. You can't get that list without the weeding process having taken place.

The people getting themselves banned are just doing all mobius members a favor.

 

[Vandaahl]

Joining a group with the sole intention to 'interact' negatively with the other members is still not against the game rules published by the developers

Nuh-uh. Frontier sees this as 'harassment' and communicated this.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Nuh-uh. Frontier sees this as 'harassment' and communicated this.

I'd like that particular point to be enforced by Frontier, but it isn't likely to happen today. The PG admin gets to kick the (PG) rule-breakers which is fine, but the evicted player is unlikely to even raise an eyebrow by the Dev's let alone have any kind of action taken.

I play in Mobius all of the time I'm in, or near, inhabited space as I have no interest in 'interacting' and being another player's 'content', and in open when in deep space (what is the real chance of someone turning up so far away?) because I can

I wouldn't be best pleased to be out in a group of Mobius players to be blown up by any of them just for 'fun'...

 

[Guest 161958]

Even though I am against private groups and multiple modes and honestly couldn't care less, it baffles me: why FD hasn't yet added a menu accessible only by the private group creator with an option to make weapons useless against other player characters. That would solve this infiltration issue. They did it with ax weapons...