Going against your own word - "infiltrators" please note
- Thread starter Rampant
- Start date
Infiltrators? OH You meant liars and cheats. I see now.
Here's another fact, OP:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bvgEwHa8nw
Maybe next time some flying gas can antelopes decide to go out into the Savannah, they'll respect that there might also be lions out there.
Haven't there been long-running complaints about a distinct lack of danger in Exploration? I guess we know how serious those complaints really were, now don't we?
Don't act like it would be any different if it were a planetary storm that did the ganking. Now that, Frontier, would be front-page stuff.
Make it happen, even if it doesn't officially go live for some time yet. Just turn the switch on at one of the meet points.
Riôt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bvgEwHa8nw
Maybe next time some flying gas can antelopes decide to go out into the Savannah, they'll respect that there might also be lions out there.
Haven't there been long-running complaints about a distinct lack of danger in Exploration? I guess we know how serious those complaints really were, now don't we?
Don't act like it would be any different if it were a planetary storm that did the ganking. Now that, Frontier, would be front-page stuff.
Make it happen, even if it doesn't officially go live for some time yet. Just turn the switch on at one of the meet points.
Riôt
Not really relevant here. Entering into a no-PvP combat PG means that, "when clicking on PG, the player agrees to be bound by the terms set out by your fellow group players". The player makes his agreement not to be the big bad wolf. So your post is just fluff and means nothing here.
By all means, players *may* enter into agreements that you have no intention of keeping, but know that this being so that player is not to be trusted as a person. Simple fact. Can't be distilled any simpler. Nothing to do with the character they are supposed to be roleplaying - the player has made an agreement not to perform that role play when clicking to enter that group. It is predetermined. If they do go on to play the big bad wolf, after that player has agreed not to, then it is determined by this act that they are not trustworthy and their agreements as a person cannot be trusted. Thus is not an opinion. Cold hard fact.
Do with this information what you will.
Yours Aye
Mark H
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
It doesn't have to be.
I'm going on DW2 fully engineered, with reinforced Prismatic shields and OC Pacifier cannons.
Still getting 50ly in my Krait.
Woohoo!
Last edited:
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
You should read the OP - it's relevant.
Getting into a non-PvP private group for you is military deception? [weird]
For me it's still on par to "infiltrate" a bar on a weekend. If you are 12 years old, it might indeed be a challenge...
Last edited:
First, I'm pretty sure that these infiltrators don't really give a damn if they broke their "word".
Second, I can't believe that these incidents come as a surprise to anyone. Ok, maybe for some people relatively new to the game, but the DW2 organizers and really any veterans of the game should have expected this. A large players event like this is a griefer magnet.
Did they really think they were going to be able to manage a player group of thousands and keep out all the nefarious players?
Well, on the plus side, this gives us something new to rant about on the forums, and take a break from all the ADS banter.
I'm not ranting. I'm not even trying to suggest ways around it or ways to police it.
This thread is simply to highlight the *fact* that if a player don't give a damn about breaking their word, *their* agreement, entered into freely, then the cold hard fact of the matter is that the player is untrustworthy as a person.
If that is what that player wants - to be freely known as an untrustworthy person, then that is entirely their choice. Only one person can prevent that, themselves.
Just wanted to get that out there. As a cold hard fact.
There is no interpretation here, no opinion and no fluff. Neither is there any "moralisation" about what a player does inside the game. Just a black and white observation about any person that enters into an agreement that they intend, from the outset, to deliberately not honour. Those people are untrustworthy. That is the plain and simple truth. Zero emotion. Simply the incontrovertible fact.
I don't even care either way whether "infiltrators" care or not about breaking their word. I'm totally ambivalent to it. Utterly dispassionate about the whether they actually care that they're untrustworthy or not. But that is the basic fact. Breaking an agreement means that the person cannot be trusted.
Here's something that I do care about. Hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is my greatest loathing. I would loathe it if it turned out that any "infiltrator" had previously made any comments about combat logging on this forum and using words such as "rules" or "sanctions" or "punishment" for combat logging. Not that I agree with combat logging, because I happen not to. Understand me when I say that it would be utterly hypocritical for somebody so invested in "rules" to go about ignoring the rules themselves and demonstrating that they, as a person, could not be trusted. That's where I'd bring emotion into the discussion, but I'd be backing that up with facts and logic, not by some hsndwavium personal preference.
Yours Aye
Mark H
Yours Aye
Mark H
Last edited:
The thing is, the latter is helpful, the former is not.
I'm quite sure those not honoring the agreement don't care what anonymous online people think of them.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Hellmode sounds great!
Do it FD, do it!
Do it FD, do it!
It's not a question of what is helpful or not, the premise of the thread is that willful deception in accepting an agreement prior to play is a reflection on that individual and not something that gets explained away by role playing within the game.
Irrelevant.
Once again, I'm not moralising. Simply stating the dispassionate fact that any person entering into an agreement that they intend to not keep is an untrustworthy person.
That's the point. It's a fact. No moralising. No emotion.
A trustworthy individual will enter into an agreement intending to keep it. In direct contrast, an individual who enters into an agreement that they fully intend not to keep from the outset simply demonstrate that they cannot be trusted.
Slàinte Mhath
Mark H
We seem to be talking about two separate and disconnected things. Dispassionately, of course.
Fine. But if the OP just wanted a statement of fact without any further discussion (on a discussion forum), then he probably should have asked a mod to have it locked upon posting.
It may be a statement specifically about the people who are acting this way, but it also highlights a problem within the current game, so you should expect people to be responding with possible solutions.
I can't recall the forum member's name, but his sig you refer to summarised a Jack Donovan quote that said violence is not the only answer, but it is the final answer to the question "Or else!" The response to which must be "Or else what?" Ergo, laws without the threat of violence are merely words without force behind them. That was the jist of it.
This thread is not about what we "think" of individuals who break their agreement. It is the truth of what those individuals are. Untrustworthy. Not opinion. Fact. No interpretation. Simple fact.
Im not really bothered whether untrustworthy individuals care or not about keeping their agreement or not. Simple fact is that if a person doesn't keep their agreement then they signal the fact that they *are* untrustworthy. The person. Not their character in a game. Again, I'm not bothered whether anyone really cares about that or not, either, but it *is* a fact and as such I thought I'd highlight it on the public forum for all to see on what the direct result is for behaviour of an individuall not sticking with the agreement they make with other people. Breaking an agreement means the individual is untrustworthy. Sole point of thread.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned